It-. 

:!;;:;{!:;  iij];:;;:;: :: ;:;  f 

r:-^  :;:;■  ;;:t;:;:J  ::::;::  111;  ;-^i  ^U    :;;■;•:;':.■"•■: : 

:;U;5::: 

.     -  '     * '  -1  - .  - 


LINCOLN  ROOM 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

MEMORIAL 

the  class  of  1901 


founded  by 
HARLAN  HOYT  HORNER 
and 
HENRIETTA  CALHOUN  HORNER 


•^^ 

/.^/. 


^-^^  ^s 


^v 


}. 


'^/.^■'~^^7 


t 


/ 


CD 


i'-ir- 


POLITICAL   DEBATES 


BETWEEN 


LINCOLN   AND    DOUGLAS. 


POLITICAL    DEBATES 


BETWEEN 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN 


AND 


STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS 


In  the  Celebrated  Campaign  of  1858  in  Illinois,  including  the  preceding 
Speeches  of  each  at  Chicago,  Springfield,  etc. 

ALSO, 

THE   TWO    GREAT   SPEECHES    OF   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

IN   OHIO   IN   1859. 


THE   BURROWS   BROTHERS    COMPANY, 

ClebelantJ,  (©Ijto. 

1894. 


^tiitn  JLpntixzt}  anti  jl^iftg  Copies  rcprinteti  far  (IL\)t  Biirrotos  ISrotl^Ers 
Compang  bg  3a\)n  Wiihan  anti  Son,  at  t\)z  ^tnibersitg  ^rcss, 
Camtirftjge,  189^. 


m 


./<^/ 


7  7^'  '^^~-  -' 


Cf 


I 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


5>  !»  )) 

)>  >>  )1 

J>  »  J? 


Page 

Speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  at  Springfield,  June  17,  1858 7 

AT  Chicago,  July  10,  1858 22 

AT  Springfield,  July  17,  1858 68 

AT  Columbus,  Ohio,  September,  1859 283 

„              „               „          AT  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September,  1859     ....  300 

Speech  of  Mr.  Douglas,  at  Chicago,  July  9,  1858         12 

„              „                 „           AT  Bloomington,  July  16,  1858 34 

„              „                „           AT  Springfield,  July  17,  1858 62 

Correspondence  between  Messrs.  Lincoln  and  Douglas,   preliminary  to 

the  Debates 80 

First  Joint  Debate  at  Ottawa,  August  21,  1858 83 

Mr.  Douglas's  Opening  Speech 83 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 90 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 103 

Second  Joint  Debate,  at  Freeport,  August  27,  1858 107 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Opening  Speech 107 

Mr.  Douglas's  Reply 114 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder 129 

Third  Joint  Debate,  at  Jonesboro,  Sept.  15,  1858 133 

Mr.  Douglas's  Speech 133 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 143 

Mr.  Douglas's  Re.joinder         157 

Fourth  Joint  Debate,  at  Charleston,  Sept.  18,  1858 163 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Speech 163 

Mr.  Douglas's  Reply 173 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder       187 

Extract  from  Mr.  Trumbull's  Speech  at  Alton 192 

Extract  from  Douglas's  Speech  at  Jacksonville 197 


6  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

Page 

Fifth  Joint  Debate,  at  Galesburgh,  Oct.  7,  1858 202 

Mr.  Douglas's  Speech 202 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 210 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 222 

Sixth  Joint  Debate,  at  Quincy,  Oct.  13,  1858 227 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Speech 227 

Mr.  Douglas's  Reply 235 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Rejoinder 248 

Seventh  and  Last  Joint  Debate,  at  Alton,  Oct.  15,  1858 253 

Mr.  Douglas's  Speech 253 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 263 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 278 


POLITICAL     DEBATES 


BETWEEN 


LINCOLN     AND     DOUGLAS. 


SPEECH   OF  HON.   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN, 

At  Springfield,  June  17,   1858. 

[The  following  speech  was  delivered  at  Springfield,  111.,  at  the  close  of  the 
Eepublican  State  Convention  held  at  that  time  and  place,  and  by  which  Con- 
vention Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  named  as  their  candidate  for  United  States 
Senator.     Mr.  Douglas  was  not  present.] 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention  :  If  we  could  first 
know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we  are  tending,  we  could  better  judge  what 
to  do,  and  how  to  do  it.  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was 
initiated  with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to 
slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not 
only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  not 
cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  "  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure  per- 
manently half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved ; 
I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery 
will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates 
will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as 
well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South. 

Have  we  no  tendency  to  the  latter  condition  ? 

Let  any  one  who  doubts,  carefully  contemplate  that  now  almost  complete 
legal  combination  —  piece  of  machinery,  so  to  speak  —  compounded  of  the 
Nebraska  doctrine  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Let  him  consider,  not  only 
what  w^ork  the  machinery  is  adapted  to  do,  and  how  well  adapted,  but  also  let 
him  study  the  history  of  its  construction,  and  trace,  if  he  can,  or  rather  fail,  if 
he  can,  to  trace  the  evidences  of  design,  and  concert  of  action,  among  its  chief 
architects,  from  the  beginning. 

The  new  year  of  1854  found  slavery  excluded  from  more  than  half  the 
States  by  State  Constitutions,  and  from  most  of  the  National  territory  by  Con- 


8  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

gressional  prohibition.  Four  days  later,  commenced  the  struggle  which  ended 
in  repealing  that  Congressional  prohibition.  This  opened  all  the  National 
territory  to_slavery,  and  was  the  first  point  gained. 

But,  so  far,  Congress  only  had  acted ;  and  an  indorsement  by  the  people,  real 
or  apparent,  was  indispensable,  to  save  the  point  already  gained,  and  give  chance 
for  more. 

This  necessity  had  not  been  overlooked,  but  had  been  provided  for,  as  well 
as  might  be,  in  the  notable  argument  of  "  squatter  sovereignty,"  otherwise 
called  "sacred  right  of  self-government,"  which  latter  phrase,  though  expressive 
of  the  only  rightful  basis  of  any  government,  was  so  perverted  in  this  attempted 
use  of  it  as  to  amount  to  just  this :  That  if  any  one  man  choose  to  enslave 
another,  no  tliird  man  shall  be  allowed  to  object.  That  argument  was  incor- 
porated into  the  Nebraska  bill  itself,  in  the  language  which  follows  :  "  It  being 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  Act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Ter- 
ritory or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  Then  opened  the 
roar  of  loose  declamation  in  favor  of  "  squatter  sovereignty,"  and  "  sacred  right 
of  self-government."  "  But,"  said  opposition  members,  "  let  us  amend  the  bill 
so  as  to  expressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the  Territory  may  exclude  slav- 
ery." "  Not  we,"  said  the  friends  of  the  measure  ;  and  down  they  voted  the 
amendment. 

While  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passing  through  Congress,  a  law  case,  involv- 
ing the  question  of  a  negro's  freedom,  by  reason  of  his  owner  having  voluntarily 
taken  him  first  into  a  free  State,  and  then  into  a  Territory  covered  by  the  Con- 
gressional prohibition,  and  held  him  as  a  slave  for  a  long  time  in  each,  was 
passing  through  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  Missouri ; 
and  both  Nebraska  bill  and  lawsuit  were  brought  to  a  decision  in  the  same 
month  of  May,  1854.  The  negro's  name  was  "Dred  Scott,"  which  name  now 
designates  the  decision  finally  made  in  the  case.  Before  the  then  next  Presi- 
dential election,  the  law  case  came  to,  and  was  argued  in,  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  ;  but  the  decision  of  it  was  deferred  until  after  the  elec- 
tion. Still,  before  the  election.  Senator  Trumbull,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate, 
requested  the  leading  advocate  of  the  Nebraska  bill  to  state  Ms  opinion 
whether  the  people  of  a  Territory  can  constitutionally  exclude  slavery  from 
their  limits ;  and  the  latter  answers  :  "  That  is  a  question  for  the  Supreme 
Court." 

The  election  came.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected,  and  the  indorsement,  such 
as  it  was,  secured.  That  was  the  second  point  gained.  The  indorsement, 
however,  fell  short  of  a  clear  popular  majority  by  nearly  four  hundred  thou- 
sand votes,  and  so,  perhaps,  was  not  overwhelmingly  reliable  and  satisfactory. 
The  outgoing  President,  in  his  last  annual  message,  as  impressively  as  possible 
echoed  back  upon  the  people  the  weight  and  authority  of  the  indorsement. 
The  Supreme  Court  met  again,  did  not  announce  their  decision,  but  ordered  a 
re-argument.  The  Presidential  inauguration  came,  and  still  no  decision  of  the 
court ;  but  the  incoming  President,  in  his  inaugural  address,  fervently  exhorted 
the  people  to  abide  by  the  forthcoming  decision,  whatever  it  might  be.  Then, 
in  a  few  days,  came  the  decision. 

The  reputed  author  of  the  Nebraska  bill  finds  an  early  occasion  to  make 
a  speech  at  this  capital  indorsing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  vehemently 
denouncing  all  opposition  to  it.  The  new  President,  too,  seizes  the  early 
occasion  of  the  Silliman  letter  to  indorse  and  strongly  construe  that  decision, 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  9 

and  to  express  his  astonishment  that  any  different  view  had  ever  been 
entertained  ! 

At  length  a  squabble  springs  up  between  the  President  and  the  author  of 
the  Nebraska  bill,  on  the  mere  question  of  fact,  whether  the  Lecorapton  Con- 
stitution was  or  was  not  in  any  just  sense  made  by  the  people  of  Kansas ;  and 
in  that  quarrel  the  latter  declares  that  all  he  wants  is  a  fair  vote  for  the  people, 
and  that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  uj).  I  do  not 
undei'stand  his  declaration,  that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or 
voted  up,  to  be  intended  by  him  other  than  as  an  apt  definition  of  the  policy 
he  would  impress  upon  the  public  mind,  —  the  principle  for  which  he  declares 
he  has  suffered  so  much,  and  is  ready  to  suffer  to  the  end.  And  well  may  he 
cling  to  that  principle  !  If  he  has  any  parental  feeling,  well  may  lie  cling  to 
it.  That  principle  is  the  only  shred  left  of  his  original  Nebraska  doctrine. 
Under  the  Dred  Scott  decision  "  squatter  sovereignty  "  squatted  out  of  exist- 
ence, tumbled  down  like  temporary  scaffolding ;  like  the  mould  at  the  foundry, 
served  through  one  blast,  and  fell  back  into  loose  sand ;  helped  to  carry  an 
election,  and  then  was  kicked  to  the  winds.  His  late  joint  struggle  with  the 
Eepublicans,  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  involves  nothing  of  the 
original  Nebraska  doctrine.  That  struggle  was  made  on  a  point  —  the  right 
of  a  people  to  make  their  own  constitution  —  upon  which  he  and  the  Eepub- 
licans have  never  differed. 

The  several  points  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in  connection  with  Senator 
Douglas's  "  care  not "  policy,  constitute  the  piece  of  machinery,  in  its  present 
state  of  advancement.  This  was  the  third  point  gained.  The  working  points 
of  that  machinery  are  :  — 

First,  That  no  negro  slave,  imported  as  such  from  Africa,  and  no  descendant 
of  such  slave,  can  ever  be  a  citizen  of  any  State,  in  the  sense  of  that  terra  as 
used  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  point  is  made  in  order  to 
deprive  the  negro,  in  every  possible  event,  of  the  benefit  of  that  provision  of  the 
United  States  Constitution  which  declares  that  "  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall 
be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

Secondly,  That,  "  subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,"  neither 
Congress  nor  a  Territorial  Legislature  can  exclude  slavery  from  any  United 
States  Territory.  This  point  is  made  in  order  that  individual  men  may  fill  up 
the  Territories  with  slaves,  without  danger  of  losing  them  as  property,  and  thus 
to  enhance  the  chances  of  permanency  to  the  institution  through  all  the  future. 

Thirdly,  Tliat  whether  the  holding  a  negro  in  actual  slavery  in  a  free  State, 
makes  him  free,  as  against  the  holder,  the  United  States  courts  will  not  decide, 
but  will  leave  to  be  decided  by  the  courts  of  any  slave  State  the  negro  may  be 
forced  into  by  the  master.  This  point  is  made,  not  to  be  pressed  immediately; 
but,  if  acquiesced  in  for  awhile,  and  apparently  indorsed  by  the  people  at  an 
election,  then  to  sustain  the  logical  conclusion  that  what  Dred  Scott's  master 
might  lawfully  do  with  Dred  Scott  in  the  free  State  of  Illinois,  every  other 
master  may  lawfully  do  with  any  other  one,  or  one  thousand  slaves,  in  Illinois, 
or  in  any  other  free  State. 

Auxiliary  to  all  this,  and  working  hand  in  hand  with  it,  the  Nebraska  doctrine, 
or  what  is  left  of  it,  is  to  educate  and  mould  public  opinion,  at  least  Northern 
public  opinion,  not  to  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up.  This 
shows  exactly  where  we  now  are  ;  and  partially,  also,  whither  we  are  tending. 

It  will  throw  additional  light  on  the  latter,  to  go  back  and  run  the  mind 

over  the  string  of  historical  facts  already  stated.     Several  things   will  now 

appear  less  dark  and  mysterious  than  they  did  when  they  were  transpiring. 

2 


10  DEBATES    BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

The  people  were  to  be  left  "perfectly  free,"  "subject  only  to  the  Constitution." 
What  the  Constitution  had  to  do  with  it,  outsiders  could  not  then  see.  Plainly 
enough  now,  it  was  an  exactly  fitted  niche,  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision  to  after- 
>  ward  come  in,  and  declare  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  people  to  be  just  no  free- 
dom at  all.  Why  was  the  amendment,  expressly  declaring  the  right  of  the 
people,  voted  down?  Plainly  enough  now,  —  the  adoption  of  it  would  have 
spoiled  the  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Why  was  the  court  decision 
held  up  ?  Why  even  a  Senator's  individual  opinion  withheld,  till  after  the 
Presidential  election  ?  Plainly  enough  now  :  the  speaking  out  then  would 
have  damaged  the  perfectly  free  argument  upon  which  the  election  was  to  be 
carried.  Why  the  outgoing  President's  felicitation  on  the  indorsement  ?  Why 
the  delay  of  a  re-argument  ?  Why  the  incoming  President's  advance  exhor- 
tation in  favor  of  the  decision  ?  These  things  look  like  the  cautious  patting 
and  petting  of  a  spirited  horse  preparatory  to  mounting  him,  when  it  is  dreaded 
that  he  may  give  the  rider  a  fall.  And  why  the  hasty  after-indorsement  of 
the  decision  by  the  President  and  others  ? 

We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  all  these  exact  adaptations  are  the  result 
of  preconcert.  But  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions  of 
which  we  know  have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places  and  by 
different  workmen,  —  Stephen,  Pranklin,  Eoger,  and  James,  for  instance,  — 
and  when  we  see  these  timbers  joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly  make 
the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the  tenons  and  mortises  exactly  fitting,  and 
all  tlie  lengths  and  proportions  of  the  different  pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their 
respective  places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too  few,  —  not  omitting  even 
scaffolding,  —  or,  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we  see  the  place  in  the  frame 
exactly  fitted  and  prepared  yet  to  bring  such  piece  in,  —  in  such  a  case,  we 
find  it  impossible  not  to  believe  that  Stephen  and  Franklin  and  Eoger  and 
James  all  understood  one  another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon  a 
common  plan  or  draft  dra,wn  up  before  the  first  blow  was  struck. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  by  the  Nebraska  bill  the  people  of  a  State 
as  well  as  Territory  were  to  be  left  "  perfectly  free,"  "  subject  only  to  the  Con- 
stitution." Why  mention  a  State  ?  They  were  legislating  for  Territories,  and 
not  for  or  about  States.  Certainly  the  people  of  a  State  are  and  ought  to  be 
subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  but  why  is  mention  of  this 
lugged  into  this  merely  Territorial  law  ?  Why  are  the  people  of  a  Territory 
and  the  people  of  a  State  therein  lumped  together,  and  their  relation  to  the 
Constitution  therein  treated  as  being  precisely  the  same  ?  While  the  opinion 
of  the  court,  by  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and  the  separate 
opinions  of  all  the  concurring  Judges,  expressly  declare  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  neither  permits  Congress  nor  a  Territorial  Legislature  to 
exclude  slavery  from  any  United  States  Territory,  they  all  omit  to  declare 
whether  or  not  the  same  Constitution  permits  a  State,  or  the  people  of  a 
State,  to  exclude  it.  Possibly,  this  is  a  mere  omission ;  but  who  can  be  quite 
sure,  if  McLean  or  Curtis  had  sought  to  get  into  the  opinion  a  declaration  of 
unlimited  power  in  the  people  of  a  State  to  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits, 
just  as  Chase  and  Mace  sought  to  get  such  declaration,  in  behalf  of  the  people 
of  a  Territory,  into  the  Nebraska  bill,  —  I  ask,  who  can  be  quite  sure  that 
it  would  not  have  been  voted  down  in  the  one  case  as  it  had  been  in  the 
other  ?  The  nearest  approach  to  the  point  of  declaring  the  power  of  a  State 
over  slavery,  is  made  by  Judge  Nelson.  He  approaches  it  more  than  once,  ■ 
using  the  precise  idea,  and  almost  the  language,  too,  of  the  Nebraska  Act. 
On  one  occasion,  his  exact  language  is,  "Except  in  cases  where  the  power  is 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  11 

restrained  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  law  of  the  State  is 
supreme  over  the  subject  of  slavery  within  its  jurisdiction."  In  what  cases 
the  power  of  the  States  is  so  restrained  by  the  United  States  Constitution,  is 
left  an  open  question,  precisely  as  the  same  question,  as  to  the  restraint  on  the 
power  of  the  Territories,  was  left  open  in  the  Nebraska  Act.  Put  this  and 
that  together,  and  we  have  another  nice  little  niche,  which  we  may,  ere  long, 
see  filled  with  another  Supreme  Court  decision,  declaring  that  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  does  not  permit  a  State  to  exclude  slavery  from  its 
limits.  And  this  may  especially  be  expected  if  the  doctrine  of  "care  not 
wliether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up  "  sliall  gain  upon  the  public  mind 
sufficiently  to  give  promise  that  such  a  decision  can  be  maintained  when 
made. 

Such  a  decision  is  all  that  slavery  now  lacks  of  being  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
States.  Welcome  or  unwelcome,  such  decision  is  probably  coming,  and  will 
soon  be  upon  us,  unless  the  power  of  the  present  political  dynasty  shall  be  met 
and  overthrown.  We  shall  lie  down  pleasantly  dreaming  that  the  people  of 
INIissouri  are  on  the  verge  of  makinu;  their  State  free,  and  we  shall  awake  to 
the  reality  instead  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  made  Illinois  a  slave  State. 
To  meet  and  overthrow  the  power  of  that  dynasty  is  the  work  now  before  all 
those  who  would  prevent  that  consummation.  That  is  what  we  have  to  do. 
How  can  we  best  do  it  ? 

There  are  those  who  denounce  us  openly  to  their  own  friends,  and  yet  whis- 
per us  softly  that  Senator  Douglas  is  the  aptest  instrument  there  is  with  which 
to  effect  that  object.  They  wish  us  to  infer  all,  from  the  fact  that  he  now 
has  a  little  quarrel  with  the  present  head  of  the  dynasty,  and  that  he  has  reg- 
ularly voted  with  us  on  a  single  point,  upon  which  he  and  we  have  never  dif- 
fered. They  remind  us  that  he  is  a  great  man,  and  that  the  largest  of  us  are 
very  small  ones.  Let  this  be  granted.  But  "  a  living  dog  is  better  than  a 
dead  lion."  Judge  Douglas,  if  not  a  dead  lion,  for  this  work  is  at  least  a  ■; 
caged  and  toothless  one.  How  can  he  oppose  the  advances  of  slavery  ?  He 
don't  care  anything  about  it.  His  avowed  mission  is  irapres.sing  the  "public 
heart"  to  care  nothing  about  it.  A  leading  Douglas  Democratic  newspaper 
thinks  Douglas's  superior  talent  will  be  needed  to  resist  tlie  revival  of  the 
African  slave  trade.  Does  Douglas  believe  an  effort  to  revive  that  trade  is 
approaching  ?  He  has  not  said  so.  Does  he  really  think  so  ?  But  if  it  is, 
how  can  he  resist  it  ?  For  years  he  has  labored  to  prove  it  a  sacred  right  of 
white  men  to  take  negro  slaves  into  the  new  Territories.  Can  he  possibly 
show  that  it  is  less  a  sacred  right  to  buy  them  where  they  can  be  bought 
cheapest  ?  And  unquestionably  they  can  be  bought  cheaper  in  Africa  than 
in  Virginia.  He  has  done  all  in  his  power  to  reduce  the  whole  question  of 
slavery  to  one  of  a  mere  right  of  property  ;  and,  as  such,  how  can  he  oppose 
the  foreign  slave  trade,  —  how  can  he  refuse  that  trade  in  that  "  property " 
shall  be  "  perfectly  free,"  —  unless  he  does  it  as  a  protection  to  the  home  pro- 
duction ?  And  as  the  home  producers  will  probably  not  ask  the  protection, 
he  will  be  wholly  without  a  ground  of  opposition. 

Senator  Douglas  holds,  we  know,  that  a  man  may  rightfully  be  wiser  to- 
day than  he  was  yesterday ;  that  he  may  rightfully  change  wlien  he  finds  him- 
self wrong.  But  can  we,  for  that  reason,  run  ahead,  and  infer  that  he  will 
make  any  particular  change,  of  which  he  himself  has  given  no  intimation  ? 
Can  we  safely  base  our  action  upon  any  such  vague  inference  ?  Now,  as  ever, 
I  wish  not  to  misrepresent  Judge  Douglas's  position,  question  his  motives,  or 
do  aught  that  can  be  personally  offensive  to  him.     Whenever,  if  ever,  he  and 


12  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

we  can  couie  together  on  principle  so  that  our  cause  may  have  assistance  from 
his  great  ability,  I  hope  to  have  interposed  no  adventitious  obstacle.  But 
clearly  he  is  not  now  with  us ;  he  does  not  pretend  to  be,  —  he  does  not 
promise  ever  to  be. 

Our  cause,  then,  must  be  intrusted  to,  and  conducted  by,  its  own  undoubted 
friends,  —  those  whose  hands  are  free,  whose  hearts  are  in  the  work,  who  do 
care  for  the  result.  Two  years  ago  the  Eepublicans  of  the  nation  mustered 
over  thirteen  hundred  thousand  strong.  We  did  this  under  the  single  impulse 
of  resistance  to  a  common  danger,  with  every  external  circumstance  against 
us.  Of  strange,  discordant,  and  even  hostile  elements  we  gathered  from  the 
four  winds,  and  formed  and  fought  the  battle  througli,  under  the  constant  hot 
fire  of  a  disciplined,  proud,  and  pampered  enemy.  Did  we  brave  all  then,  to 
falter  now,  —  now,  when  that  same  enemy  is  wavering,  dissevered,  and  belli- 
gerent ?  The  result  is  not  doubtful.  We  shall  not  fail ;  if  we  stand  firm,  we 
shall  not  fail.  Wise  counsels  may  accelerate,  or  mistakes  delay  it,  but,  sooner 
or  later,  the  victory  is  sure  to  come. 


SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS, 

On  the  Occasion  of  his  Public  Reception  at  Chicago,  Friday  Evening, 
July  9th,  1858.     (Mr.  Lincoln  was  present.) 

Mr.  Douglas  said, — 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Fellow-Citizens  :  I  can  find  no  language  which  can 
adequately  express  my  profound  gratitude  for  the  magnificent  welcome  which 
you  have  extended  to  me  on  this  occasion.  This  vast  sea  of  human  faces  in- 
dicates how  deep  an  interest  is  felt  by  our  people  in  the  great  questions  which 
agitate  the  public  mind,  and  which  underlie  the  foundations  of  our  free  insti- 
tutions. A  reception  like  this,  so  great  in  numbers  that  no  human  voice  can 
be  heard  to  its  countless  thousands,  —  so  enthusiastic  that  no  one  individual 
can  be  the  object  of  such  enthusiasm,  —  clearly  shows  that  there  is  some  great 
principle  which  sinks  deep  in  the  heart  of  the  masses,  and  involves  the  rights 
and  the  liberties  of  a  whole  people,  that  has  brought  you  together  with  a  una- 
nimity and  a  cordiality  never  before  excelled,  if,  indeed,  equalled  on  any  occa- 
sion. I  have  not  the  vanity  to  believe  that  it  is  any  personal  compliment 
to  me. 

It  is  an  expression  of  your  devotion  to  that  great  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment, to  which  my  life  for  many  years  past  has  been,  and  in  the  future  will 
be,  devoted.  If  there  is  any  one  principle  dearer  and  more  sacred  than  all 
others  in  free  governments,  it  is  that  which  asserts  the  exclusive  right  of  a  free 
people  to  form  and  adopt  their  own  fundamental  law,  and  to  manage  and  regu- 
late their  own  internal  affairs  and  domestic  institutions. 

Wlien  I  found  an  effort  being  made  during  the  recent  session  of  Congress 
to  force  a  constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  and  to 
force  that  State  into  the  Union  with  a  constitution  which  her  people  had 
rejected  by  more  than  ten  thousand,  I  felt  bound  as  a  man  of  honor  and  a  rep- 
resentative of  Illinois,  bound  by  every  consideration  of  duty,  of  fidelity,  and 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  13 

of  patriotism,  to  resist  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  the  consummation  of  that 
fraud.  With  others,  I  did  resist  it,  and  resisted  it  successfully  until  the  at- 
tempt was  abandoned.  We  I'orced  them  to  refer  that  constitution  back  to  the 
people  of  Kansas,  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  they  shall  decide  at  an  election 
which  is  fixed  for  the  first  Monday  in  August  next.  It  is  true  that  the  mode 
of  reference,  and  the  form  of  the  submission,  was  not  such  as  I  could  sanc- 
tion with  my  vote,  for  the  reason  that  it  discriminated  between  Free  States 
and  Slave  States  ;  providing  that  if  Kansas  consented  to  come  in  under  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  it  should  be  received  with  a  population  of  thirty-five 
thousand ;  but  that  if  she  demanded  another  constitution,  more  consistent 
with  the  sentiments  of  her  people  and  their  feelings,  that  it  should  not  be 
received  into  the  Union  until  she  has  93,420  inhabitants.  I  did  not  consider 
that  mode  of  submission  fair,  for  the  reason  that  any  election  is  a  mockery  which 
is  not  free,  that  any  election  is  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  which 
holds  out  inducements  for  affirmative  votes,  and  threatens  penalties  for  nega- 
tive votes.  But  whilst  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  mode  of  submission,  whilst 
I  resisted  it  to  the  last,  demanding  a  fair,  a  just,  a  free  mode  of  submission, 
still,  when  the  law  passed  placing  it  within  the  power  of  the  people  of  Kansas 
at  that  election  to  reject  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  then  make  another 
in  harmony  with  their  principles  and  their  opinions,  I  did  not  believe  that 
either  the  penalties  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  inducements  on  the  other,  would 
force  that  people  to  accept  a  constitution  to  which  they  are  irreconcilably 
opposed.  All  I  can  say  is,  that  if  their  votes  can  be  controlled  by  such  con- 
siderations, all  the  sympathy  which  has  been  expended  upon  them  has  been 
misplaced,  and  all  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  in  defence  of  their  right  to 
self-government  have  been  made  in  an  unworthy  cause. 

Hence,  my  friends,  I  regard  the  Lecompton  battle  as  having  been  fought, 
and  the  victory  won,  because  the  arrogant  demand  for  the  admission  of  Kansas 
under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  unconditionally,  whether  her  people  wanted 
it  or  not,  has  been  abandoned,  and  the  principle  which  recognizes  the  right  of 
the  people  to  decide  for  themselves  has  been  submitted  in  its  place. 

Fellow-citizens,  while  I  devoted  my  best  energies  —  all  my  energies,  men- 
tal and  physical  —  to  the  vindication  of  the  great  principle,  and  whilst  the 
result  has  been  such  as  will  enable  the  people  of  Kansas  to  come  into  tlie 
Union  with  such  a  constitution  as  they  desire,  yet  the  credit  of  tliis  great 
moral  victory  is  to  be  divided  among  a  large  number  of  men  of  various  and 
different  political  creeds.  I  was  rejoiced  when  I  found  in  this  great  contest 
the  Eepublican  party  coming  up  manfully  and  sustaining  the  principle  that 
the  people  of  each  Territory,  when  coming  into  the  Union,  have  the  right  to 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits.  I  have  seen  the  time  when  that  principle  was  controverted.  I  have 
seen  the  time  when  all  parties  did  not  recognize  the  right  of  a  people  to  have 
slavery  or  freedom,  to  tolerate  or  prohibit  slavery  as  they  deemed  best,  but 
claimed  that  power  for  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  regardless  of  the 
wishes  of  the  people  to  be  affected  by  it ;  and  when  I  found  upon  the  Critten- 
den-Montgomery bill  the  Republicans  and  Americans  of  the  North,  and  I  may 
say,  too,  some  glorious  Americans  and  old-line  Whigs  from  the  South,  like 
Crittenden  and  his  patriotic  associates,  joined  with  a  portion  of  the  Democracy 
to  carry  out  and  vindicate  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  whether  slavery 
should  or  should  not  exist  within  the  limits  of  Kansas,  I  was  rejoiced  within 
my  secret  soul,  for  I  saw  an  indication  that  the  American  people,  when  they 
come  to  understand  the  principle,  would  give  it  their  cordial  support. 


14  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

The  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill  was  as  fair  and  as  perfect  an  exposition 
of  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  as  could  be  carried  out  by  any  bill  that 
man  ever  devised.  It  proposed  to  refer  the  Lecompton  Constitution  back  to 
the  people  of  Kansas,  and  give  them  the  right  to  accept  or  reject  it  as  they 
pleased,  at  a  fair  election,  held  in  pursuance  of  law,  and  in  the  event  of  their 
rejecting  it,  and  forming  another  in  its  stead,  to  permit  them  to  come  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States.  It  was  fair  and  just  in 
all  of  its  provisions.  I  gave  it  my  cordial  support,  and  was  rejoiced  when  I 
found  that  it  passed  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  and  at  one  time  I  enter- 
tained high  hope  that  it  would  pass  the  Senate. 

I  regard  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  as  having  been  vindi- 
cated and  made  triumphant  in  this  land  as  a  permanent  rule  of  public  policy 
in  the  organization  of  Territories  and  the  admission  of  new  States.  Illinois 
took  her  position  upon  this  principle  many  years  ago.  You  all  recollect  that 
in  1850,  after  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  that  year,  when  I 
returned  to  my  home  there  was  great  dissatisfaction  expressed  at  my  course 
in  supporting  those  measures.  I  appeared  before  the  people  of  Chicago  at  a 
mass  meeting,  and  vindicated  each  and  every  one  of  those  measures ;  and  by 
reference  to  my  speech  on  that  occasion,  \vhich  was  printed  and  circulated 
broadcast  throughout  the  State  at  the  time,  you  will  find  that  I  then  and 
there  said  that  those  measures  were  all  founded  upon  the  great  principle  that 
every  people  ought  to  possess  the  right  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domes- 
tic institutions  in  their  own  way,  and  that  that  riglit  being  possessed  by  the 
people  of  the  States,  I  saw  no  reason  why  the  same  principle  should  not  be 
extended  to  all  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  A  general  election 
was  held  in  this  State  a  few  months  afterward,  for  members  of  the  Legislature, 
pending  which  all  tliese  questions  were  thoroughly  canvassed  and  discussed, 
and  the  nominees  of  tlie  different  parties  instructed  in  regard  to  the  wishes  of 
their  constituents  upon  them.  When  that  election  was  over,  and  the  Legisla- 
ture assembled,  they  proceeded  to  consider  the  merits  of  those  Compromise 
measures,  and  the  principles  upon  which  they  were  predicated.  And  what 
was  the  result  of  their  action  ?  They  passed  resolutions,  first  repealing  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  instructions,  and  in  lieu  thereof  adopted  another  resolution,  in 
which  they  declared  the  great  principle  which  asserts  the  right  of  the  people 
to  make  tlieir  own  form  of  government  and  establish  their  own  institutions. 
That  resolution  is  as  follows  :  — 

Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  based  upon  the  right  of  the 
people  to  form  for  themselves  such  a  government  as  they  may  choose  ;  that  this  great 
principle,  the  birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  secured  to  us  by  the  blood  of 
our  ancestors,  ought  to  be  secured  to  future  generations,  and  no  limitation  ought  to 
be  applied  to  this  power  in  the  organization  of  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  of 
either  Territorial  Government  or  State  Constitution,  provided  the  Government  so 
established  shall  be  Republican,  and  in  conformity  with  the  Coastitulio:i  of  the 
United  States. 

That  resolution,  declaring  the  great  principle  of  self-government  as  appli- 
cable to  the  Territories  and  new  States,  passed  the  House  of  EejDresentatives 
of  this  State  by  a  vote  of  sixty-one  in  the  affirmative,  to  only  four  in  the  nega- 
tive. Thus  you  find  that  an  expression  of  public  opinion  —  enlightened, 
educated,  intelligent  public  opinion  —  on  this  question  by  the  representa- 
tives of  Illinois  in  1851  approaches  nearer  to  unanimity  than  has  ever  been 
obtained  on  any  controverted  question.     That  resolution  was  entered  on  the 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  15 

journal  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  it  has  remained  there 
from  that  day  to  this,  a  standing  instruction  to  her  Senators,  and  a  request  to 
her  Representatives,  in  Congress  to  carry  out  that  principle  in  all  future  cases. 
Illinois,  therefore,  stands  pre-eminent  as  tlie  State  which  stepped  forward 
early  and  established  a  platform  applicable  to  this  slavery  question,  concurred 
in  alike  by  Whigs  and  Democrats,  in  which  it  was  declared  to  be  the  wish  of 
our  people  that  thereafter  the  people  of  the  Territories  should  be  left  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  and 
that  no  limitation  should  be  placed  upon  that  right  in  any  form. 

Hence  what  was  my  duty  in  1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to  bring  for- 
ward a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  ? 
Was  it  not  my  duty,  in  obedience  to  the  Illinois  platform,  to  your  standing 
instructions  to  your  Senators,  adopted  with  almost  entire  unanimity,  to  incor- 
porate in  that  bill  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  declaring  that  it  was 
"  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any 
State  or  Territory,  or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ? "  I  did  incorpo- 
rate that  principle  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and  perhaps  I  did  as  much 
as  any  living  man  in  the  enactment  of  that  bill,  thus  establishing  the  doctrine 
in  the  public  policy  of  the  country.  I  then  defended  that  principle  against 
assaults  from  one  section  of  the  Union.  During  this  last  winter  it  became 
my  duty  to  vindicate  it  against  assaults  from  the  other  section  of  the  Union. 
I  vindicated  it  boldly  and  fearlessly,  as  the  people  of  Chicago  can  bear  wit- 
ness, when  it  was  assailed  by  Free-soilers  ;  and  during  this  winter  I  vindicated 
and  defended  it  as  boldly  and  fearlessly  when  it  was  attempted  to  be  violated 
by  the  almost  united  South.  I  pledged  myself  to  you  on  every  stump  in 
Illinois  in  1854,  I  pledged  myself  to  the  people  of  other  States,  North  and 
South,  wherever  I  spoke ;  and  in  the  United  States  Senate  and  elsewhere,  in 
every  form  in  which  I  could  reach  tlie  public  mind  or  the  public  ear,  I  gave 
the  pledge  that  I,  so  far  as  the  power  should  be  in  my  hands,  would  vindicate 
the  principle  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  their  own  institutions,  to 
establish  Free  States  or  Slave  States  as  they  chose,  and  that  tliat  principle 
should  never  be  violated  either  by  fraud,  by  violence,  by  circumvention,  or  by 
any  other  means,  if  it  was  in  my  power  to  prevent  it.  I  now  submit  to  you, 
my  fellow-citizens,  whether  I  have  not  redeemed  that  pledge  in  good  faith. 
Yes,  my  friends,  I  have  redeemed  it  in  good  faith  ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  heart- 
felt gratification  to  me  to  see  these  assembled  thousands  here  to-night  bearing 
their  testimony  to  the  fidelity  with  which  I  have  advocated  that  principle, 
and  redeemed  my  pledges  in  connection  with  it. 

I  will  be  entirely  frank  with  you.  My  object  was  to  secure  the  right  of 
the  people  of  each  State  and  of  each  Territory,  North  or  South,  to  decide  the 
question  for  themselves,  to  have  slavery  or  not,  just  as  they  chose  ;  and  my 
opposition  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  not  predicated  upon  the  ground 
that  it  was  a  pro-slavery  constitution,  nor  would  my  action  have  been  differ- 
ent had  it  been  a  Free-soil  constitution.  My  speech  against  the  Lecompton 
fraud  was  made  on  the  9th  of  December,  while  the  vote  on  the  slavery  clause 
in  that  Constitution  was  not  taken  until  the  21st  of  the  same  month,  nearly 
two  weeks  after.  I  made  my  speech  against  the  Lecompton  monstrosity  solely 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  free 
government ;  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of 
Kansas  ;  that  it  did  not  embody  their  will ;  that  they  were  averse  to  it ;  and 


16  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

hence  I  denied  the  right  of  Congress  to  force  it  upon  them,  either  as  a  "Free 
State  or  a  Slave  State.  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  force  a  slavehokling 
State  upon  an  unwilling  people.  I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  Free  State  upon 
an  unwilling  people.  I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  good  thing  upon  a  people  who 
are  unwilling  to  receive  it.  The  great  principle  is  the  right  of  every  commu- 
nity to  judge  and  decide  for  itself  whether  a  thing  is  right  or  wrong,  whether  it 
would  he  good  or  evil  for  them  to  adopt  it ;  and  tlie  right  of  free  action,  the  right 
of  free  thought,  the  right  of  free  judgment,  upon  the  question  is  dearer  to  every 
true  American  than  any  other  under  a  free  government.  My  objection  to  the 
Lecompton  contrivance  was,  that  it  undertook  to  put  a  constitution  on  tlie 
people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  in  opposition  to  their  wishes,  and  thus 
violated  the  great  principle  upon  which  all  our  institutions  rest.  It  is  no 
answer  to  this  argument  to  say  that  slavery  is  an  evil,  and  hence  should  not 
be  tolerated.  You  must  allow  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  it 
is  a  good  or  an  evil.  You  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  they 
desire  a  Maine  liquor  law  or  not ;  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves 
what  kind  of  common  schools  they  will  have,  what  system  of  banking  they 
will  adopt,  or  whether  they  will  adopt  any  at  all ;  you  allow  them  to  decide 
for  themselves  the  relations  between  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child, 
guardian  and  ward,  —  in  fact,  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  all 
other  questions ;  and  why  not  upon  this  question  ?  AVhenever  you  put  a  limi- 
tation upon  the  right  of  any  people  to  decide  what  laws  they  want,  you  have 
destroyed  the  fundamental  principle  of  self-government. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  perhaps,  it  will  not  be  improper  for  me  on 
this  occasion  to  allude  to  the  position  of  those  who  have  chosen  to  arraign  my 
conduct  on  this  same  subject.  I  have  observed  from  the  public  prints  that 
but  a  few  days  ago  the  Eepublican  party  of  the  State  of  Illinois  assembled  in 
Convention  at  Springfield,  and  not  only  laid  down  their  platform,  but  nom- 
inated a  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  as  my  successor.  I  take 
great  pleasure  in  saying  that  I  have  known,  personally  and  intimately,  for 
about  a  quarter  of  a  century,  tlie  worthy  gentleman  who  has  been  nominated 
for  my  place,  and  I  will  say  that  I  regard  him  as  a  kind,  amiable,  and  intelli- 
gent gentleman,  a  good  citizen  and  an  honorable  opponent ;  and  whatever  issue 
I  may  have  with  him  will  be  of  principle,  and  not  involving  personalities. 
Mr.  Lincoln  made  a  speech  before  tliat  Eepublican  Convention  which  unan- 
imously nominated  him  for  the  Senate,  —  a  speech  evidently  w^ell  prepared 
and  carefully  written,  —  in  which  he  states  the  basis  upon  Avhich  he  proposes 
to  carry  on  the  campaign  during  this  summer.  In  it  he  lays  down  two  dis- 
tinct propositions  which  I  shall  notice,  and  upon  which  I  shall  take  a  direct 
and  bold  issue  with  him. 

His  first  and  main  proposition  I  will  give  in  his  own  language,  scripture 
quotations  and  all  [laughter]  ;  I  give  his  exact  language  :  "  '  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure,  perma- 
nently, half  slave  and  half /rcr.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved,  I 
do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  to  cease  to  be  divided.  It 
will  become  all  one  tliins^,  or  all  the  other." 

In  other  w^ords,  ]\Ir.  Lincoln  asserts,  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  this 
government,  that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  domestic 
institutions  of  each  and  all  the  States  of  the  Union ;  and  he  therefore  invites 
all  the  non-slaveholding  States  to  band  together,  organize  as  one  bod}^  and 
make  war  upon  slavery  in  Kentucky,  upon  slavery  in  Virginia,  upon  the 
Carolinas,  upon  slavery  in  all  of  the  slaveholding  States  in  this  Union,  and  to 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  17 

persevere  in  that  war  until  it  shall  be  exterminated.  He  then  notifies  the 
slaveholdinfT  States  to  stand  tOLjether  as  a  unit  and  make  an  arro-ressive  war 
upon  the  Free  States  of  this  Union  with  a  view  of  establishing  slavery  in 
them  all ;  of  forcing  it  upon  Illinois,  of  forcing  it  upon  New  York,  upon  New 
England,  and  upon  every  other  Free  State,  and  that  they  shall  keep  up  the 
warfare  until  it  has  been  formally  established  in  them  all.  In  other  words, 
Mr.  Lincoln  advocates  boldly  and  clearly  a  war  of  sections,  a  war  of  the  North 
against  the  South,  of  the  Free  States  against  the  Slave  States,  —  a  war  of  exter- 
mination, —  to  be  continued  relentlessly  until  the  one  or  the  other  shall  be 
subdued,  and  all  the  States  shall  either  become  free  or  become  slave. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  must  say  to  you  frankly  that  I  -take  bold,  unqualified 
issue  with  him  upon  that  principle.  I  assert  that  it  is  neither  desirable  nor 
possible  that  there  should  be  uniformity  in  the  local  institutions  and  domestic 
regulations  of  the  different  States  of  this  Union.  The  fraraers  of  our  govern- 
ment  never  contemplated  uniformity  in  its  internal  concerns.  The  fathers  of 
the  Revolution  and  the  sages  who  made  the  Constitution  well  understood  that 
the  laws  and  domestic  institutions  which  would  suit  the  granite  hills  of  New 
Hampshire  would  be  totally  unfit  for  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina  ; 
they  well  understood  that  the  laws  which  would  suit  the  agricultural  districts 
of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  would  be  totally  unfit  for  the  large  mining 
regions  of  the  Pacific,  or  the  lumber  regions  of  Maine.  They  well  understood 
that  the  great  varieties  of  soil,  of  production,  and  of  interests  in  a  Republic  as 
large  as  this,  required  different  local  and  domestic  regulations  in  each  locality, 
adapted  to  the  wants  and  interests  of  each  separate  State,  and  for  that  reason 
it  was  provided  in  the  Federal  Constitution  that  the  thirteen  original  States 
should  remain  sovereign  and  supreme  within  their  own  limits  in  regard  to  all 
that  was  local  and  internal  and  domestic,  while  the  Federal  Government 
should  have  certain  specified  powers  which  were  general  and  national,  and 
could  be  exercised  only  by  Federal  authority. 

The  framers  of  the  Constitution  well  understood  that  each  locality,  having 
separate  and  distinct  interests,  required  separate  and  distinct  laws,  domestic 
institutions,  and  police  regulations  adapted  to  its  own  wants  and  its  own  con- 
dition ;  and  they  acted  on  the  presumption,  also,  that  these  laws  and  institu- 
tions would  be  as  diversified  and  as  dissimilar  as  the  States  would  be  numerous, 
and  that  no  two  would  be  precisely  alike,  because  the  interests  of  no  two 
would  be  precisely  the  same.  Hence  I  assert  that  the  great  fundamental 
principle  which  underlies  our  complex  system  of  State  and  Federal  govern- 
ments contemplated  diversity  and  dissimilarity  in  the  local  institutions  and 
domestic  affairs  of  each  and  every  State  then  in  the  Union,  or  thereafter  to 
be  admitted  into  the  Confederacy.  I  therefore  conceive  that  my  friend 
Mr.  Lincoln  has  totally  misapprehended  the  great  principles  upon  which 
our  government  rests.  Uniformity  in  local  and  domestic  affairs  would  be 
destructive  of  State  rights,  of  State  sovereignty,  of  personal  liberty  and  personal 
freedom.  Uniformity  is  the  parent  of  despotism  the  world  over,  not  only  in 
politics,  but  in  religion.  Wherever  the  doctrine  of  uniformity  is  proclaimed, 
that  all  the  States  must  be  free  or  all  slave,  that  all  labor  must  be  white  or 
all  black,  that  all  the  citizens  of  the  different  States  must  have  the  same 
privileges  or  be  governed  by  the  same  regulations,  you  have  destroyed  the 
greatest  safeguard  which  our  institutions  have  thrown  around  the  rights  of 
the  citizen. 

How  could  this  uniformity  be  accomplished,  if  it  was  desirable  and  pos- 
sible ?     There  is  but  one  mode  in  which  it  could  be  obtained,  and  that  must 

3 


18  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

be  by  abolishing  the  State  Legislatures,  blotting  out  State  sovereignty,  merg- 
ing the  rights  and  sovereignty  of  the  States  in  one  consolidated  empire,  and 
vesting  Congress  with  the  plenary  power  to  make  all  the  police  regulations, 
domestic  and  local  laws,  uniform  throughout  the  limits  of  the  Eepublic. 
When  you  shall  have  done  this,  you  will  have  uniformity.  Then  the  States 
M'ill  all  be  slave  or  all  be  free ;  then  negroes  will  vote  everywhere  or  nowhere ; 
then  you  will  have  a  Maine  liquor  law  in  every  State  or  none  ;  then  you  will 
have  uniformity  in  all  things,  local  and  domestic,  by  the  authority  of  the 
Federal  Government.  But  when  you  attain  that  uniformity,  you  will  have 
converted  these  thirty-two  sovereign,  independent  States  into  one  consolidated 
empire,  with  the  uniformity  of  disposition  reigning  triumphant  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 

From  this  view  of  the  case,  my  friends,  I  am  driven  irresistibly  to  the 
conclusion  that  diversity,  dissimilarity,  variety,  in  all  our  local  and  domestic 
institutions  is  the  great  safeguard  of  our  liberties,  and  that  the  framers  of 
our  institutions  were  wise,  sagacious,  and  patriotic  when  they  made  this  gov- 
ernment a  confederation  of  sovereign  States,  with  a  legislature  for  each,  and 
conferred  upon  each  legislature  the  power  to  make  all  local  and  domestic  insti- 
tutions to  suit  the  people  it  represented,  without  interference  from  any  other 
State  or  from  the  general  Congress  of  the  Union.  If  we  expect  to  maintain 
our  liberties,  we  must  preserve  the  rights  and  sovereignty  of  the  States  ; 
we  must  maintain  and  carry  out  that  great  principle  of  self-government 
incorporated  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  indorsed  by  the  Illinois 
Legislature  in  1851,  emphatically  embodied  and  carried  out  in  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  and  vindicated  this  year  by  the  refusal  to  bring  Kansas  into 
the  Union  with  a  constitution  distasteful  to  her  people. 

The  other  proposition  discussed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  speech  consists  in  a 
crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  On  this  question  also  I  desire  to  say  to  you  unequivo- 
cally, that  I  take  direct  and  distinct  issue  with  him.  I  have  no  warfare  to 
make  on  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  either  on  account  of  that  or 
any  other  decision  which  they  have  pronounced  from  that  bench.  ',  The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  has  provided  that  the  powers  of  government 
(and  the  Constitution  of  each  State  has  the  same  provision)  shall  be  divided 
into  three  departments,  —  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial.  The  right  and 
the  province  of  expounding  the  Constitution  and  constructing  the  law  is 
vested  in  the  judiciary  established  by  the  Constitution.  As  a  lawyer,  I  feel 
at  liberty  to  appear  before  the  court  and  controvert  any  principle  of  law  while 
the  question  is  pending  before  the  tribunal ;  but  when  the  decision  is  made, 
my  private  opinion,  j^our  opinion,  all  other  opinions,  must  yield  to  the  majesty 
of  that  authoritative  adjudication.  I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  in- 
volves a  great  principle,  upon  which  our  rights,  our  liberty,  and  our  property 
all  depend.  What  security  have  you  for  your  property,  for  your  reputation, 
and  for  your  personal  rights,  if  the  courts  are  not  upheld,  and  their  decisions 
respected  when  once  fairly  rendered  by  the  highest  tribunal  known  to  the 
Constitution  ?  I  do  not  choose,  therefore,  to  go  into  anv  arfiument  with  Mr. 
Lincoln  in  reviewing  the  various  decisions  which  the  Supreme  Court  has 
made,  either  upon  the  Dred  Scott  case  or  any  other.  I  have  no  idea  of 
appealing  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  upon  a  constitutional  ques- 
tion to  the  decisions  of  a  tumultuous  town  meeting.  I  am  aware  that  once  an 
eminent  lawyer  of  this  city,  now  no  more,  said  that  the  State  of  Illinois  had 
the  most  perfect  judicial  system  in  the  world,  subject  to  but  one  exception, 


AND   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS.  19 

which  could  be  cured  by  a  slight  amendment,  and  that  amendment  was  to  so 
change  the  law  as  to  allow  an  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Illinois,  on  all  constitutional  questions,  to  justices  of  the  peace. 

My  friend  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  sits  behind  me,  reminds  me  that  that  proposi- 
tion was  made  when  I  was  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I 
'do  not  think  that  fact  adds  any  greater  weight  or  authority  to  the  suggestion. 
It  matters  not  with  me  who  was  on  the  bench,  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  or  myself, 
whether  a  Lockwood  or  a  Smith,  a  Taney  or  a  Marshall ;  tlie  decision  of  the 
highest  tribunal  known  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country  must  be  final  till  it 
has  been  reversed  by  an  equally  high  authority.  Hence,  I  am  opposed  to  this 
doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  by  which  he  proposes  to  take  an  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  L'^nited  States,  upon  this  high  constitu- 
tional question,  to  a  Republican  caucus  sitting  in  the  country.  Yes,  or  any 
other  caucus  or  town  meeting,  whether  it  be  Republican,  American,  or  Demo- 
cratic. I  respect  the  decisions  of  that  august  tribunal;  I  shall  always  bow  in 
deference  to  them.  I  am  a  law-abiding  man.  I  will  sustain  the  Constitution 
of  my  country  as  our  fathers  have  made  it.  I  will  yield  obedience  to  the  laws, 
whether  I  like  them  or  not,  as  I  find  them  on  the  statute  book.  I  will  sustain 
the  judicial  tribunals  and  constituted  authorities  in  all  matters  within  the  pale 
of  their  jurisdiction  as  defined  by  the  Constitution. 

But  I  am  equally  free  to  say  that  the  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Lincoln  for 
resisting  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  does  not  in 
itself  meet  my  approbation.  He  objects  to  it  because  that  decision  declared 
that  a  negro  descended  from  African  parents  who  were  brought  here  and  sold 
as  slaves  is  not,  and  cannot  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  He  says  it  is 
wrong,  because  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the  benefits  of  that  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution which  says  that  citizens  of  one  State  shall  enjoy  all  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several  States ;  in  other  words,  he  thinks  it 
wrong  because  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the  privileges,  immunities,  and  rights  of 
citizenship,  which  pertain,  according  to  that  decision,  only  to  the  white  man. 
I  am  free  to  say  to  you  that  in  my  opinion  this  government  of  ours  is  founded 
on  the  white  basis.  It  was  made  by  the  white  man,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
white  man,  to  be  administered  by  white  men,  in  such  manner  as  they  should 
determine.  It  is  also  true  that  a  negro,  an  Indian,  or  any  other  man  of  inferior 
race  to  a  white  man  should  be  permitted  to  enjoy,  and  humanity  requires  that 
he  should  have,  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  which  he  is  capable 
of  exercising  consistent  with  the  safety  of  society.  I  would  give  him  every 
right  and  every  privilege  which  his  capacity  would  enable  him  to  enjoy,  con- 
sistent with  the  good  of  the  society  in  which  he  lived.  But  you  may  ask  me, 
What  are  these  rights  and  these  privileges?  My' answer  is,  that  each  State 
must  decide  for  itself  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  rights.  Illinois  has  decided 
for  herself.  We  have  decided  that  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  and  we  have 
at  the  same  time  decided  that  he  shall  not  vote,  or  serve  on  juries,  or  enjoy 
political  privileges.  I  am  content  with  that  system  of  policy  which  we  have 
adopted  for  ourselves.  I  deny  the  right  of  any  other  State  to  complain  of  our 
policy  in  that  respect,  or  to  interfere  with  it,  or  to  attempt  to  change  it.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  State  of  Maine  has  decided  that  in  that  State  a  negro  man 
may  vote  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  The  sovereign  power  of  Maine 
had  the  right  to  prescribe  that  rule  for  herself  Illinois  has  no  right  to  com- 
plain of  Maine  for  conferring  the  right  of  negro  suffrage,  nor  has  Maine  any 
right  to  interfere  with  or  complain  of  Illinois  because  she  has  denied  negro 
suffrage. 


20  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

The  State  of  New  York  lias  decided  by  her  Constitution  that  a  negro  may 
vote,  provided  that  he  own  $250  worth  of  property,  but  not  otherwise.  The 
rich  negro  can  vote,  but  the  poor  one  cannot.  Although  that  distinction  does 
not  commend  itself  to  my  judgment,  yet  I  assert  that  the  sovereign  power  of 
New  York  had  a  right  to  prescribe  that  form  of  the  elective  franchise.  Ken- 
tucky, Virginia,  and  other  States  have  provided  that  negroes,  or  a  certain  class 
of  them  in  those  States,  shall  be  slaves,  having  neither  civil  or  political  rights. 
Without  indorsing  the  wisdom  of  that  decision,  I  assert  that  Virginia  has  the 
same  power,  by  virtue  of  her  sovereignty  to  protect  slavery  within  her  limits, 
as  Illinois  has  to  banish  it  forever  from  our  own  borders.  I  assert  the  right  of 
each  State  to  decide  for  itself  on  all  these  questions,  and  I  do  not  subscribe  to 
the  doctrine  of  my  friend  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  uniformity  is  either  desirable  or 
possible.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  States  must  all  be  free  or  must  all 
be  slave. 

I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  negro  must  have  civil  and  political  rights 
everywhere  or  nowhere.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  Chinese  must  have 
the  same  rights  in  California  that  we  would  confer  upon  him  here.  I  do  not 
acknowledge  that  the  coolie  imported  into  this  country  must  necessarily  be 
put  upon  an  equality  with  the  white  race.  I  do  not  acknowledge  any  of  these 
doctrines  of  uniformity  in  the  local  and  domestic  regulations  in  the  different 
States. 

Thus  you  see,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  the  issues  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
myself,  as  respective  candidates  for  the  United  States  Senate,  as  made  up,  are 
direct,  unequivocal,  and  irreconcilable.  He  goes  for  uniformity  in  our  domestic 
institutions,  for  a  war  of  sections,  until  one  or  the  other  shall  be  subdued.  I 
go  for  the  great  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  —  the  right  of  the  people 
to  decide  for  themselves. 

On  the  other  point,  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  for  a  warfare  upon  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  because  of  their  judicial  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 
I  yield  obedience  to  the  decisions  in  that  court,  —  to  the  final  determination 
of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  known  to  our  Constitution.  He  objects  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  does  not  put  the  negro  in  the  possession  of  the 
rights  of  citizenship  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  I  am  opposed  to 
negro  equality.  I  repeat  that  this  nation  is  a  white  people, —  a  people  com- 
posed of  European  descendants  ;  a  people  that  have  established  this  government 
for  themselves  and  their  posterity,  —  and  I  am  in  favor  of  preserving,  not  only 
the  purity  of  the  blood,  but  the  purity  of  the  government  from  any  mixture  or 
amalgamation  with  inferior  races.  I  have  seen  the  effects  of  this  mixture  of 
superior  and  inferior  races,  —  this  amalgamation  of  white  men  and  Indians  and 
negroes  ;  we  have  seen  it  in  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  America,  and 
in  all  the  Spanish-American  States  ;  and  its  result  has  been  degeneration,  demor- 
alization, and  degradation  below  the  capacity  for  self-government. 

I  am  opposed  to  taking  any  step  that  recognizes  the  negro  man  or  the 
Indian  as  the  equal  of  tlie  white  man.  I  am  opposed  to  giving  him  a  voice  in 
the  administration  of  the  government.  I  would  extend  to  the  negro  and  tlie 
Indian  and  to  all  dependent  races  every  right,  every  privilege,  and  every 
immunity  consistent  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  white  races ;  but 
equality  they  never  should  have,  either  political  or  social,  or  in  any  other 
respect  whatever. 

My  friends,  you  see  that  the  issues  are  distinctly  drawn.  I  stand  by 
the  same  platform  that  I  have  so  often  proclaimed  to  you  and  to  the  people  of 
Illinois  heretofore.     I  stand  by  the  Democratic  organization,  yield  obedience 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  21 

to  its  usages,  and  support  its  regular  nominations.  I  indorse  and  approve  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  and  I  adhere  to  and  intend  to  carry  out,  as  part  of  that 
platform,  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  which  recognizes  tlie  right  of 
the  people  in  each  State  and  Territory  to  decide  for  themselves  their  domestic 
institutions.  In  other  words,  if  the  Lecompton  issue  shall  arise  again,  you 
have  only  to  turn  back  and  see  where  you  have  found  me  during  the  last  six 
months,  and  then  rest  assured  that  you  will  find  me  in  the  same  position, 
battling  for  the  same  principle,  and  vindicating  it  from  assault  from  whatever 
quarter  it  may  come,  so  long  as  I  have  the  power  to  do  it. 

Fellow-citizens,  you  now  have  before  you  the  outlines  of  the  propositions 
which  I  intend  to  discuss  before  the  people  of  Illinois  during  the  pending 
campaign.     I  have  spoken  without  preparation  and  in  a  very  desultory  man- 
ner, and  may  have  omitted  some  points  which  I  desired  to  discuss,  and  may 
have  been  less  explicit  on  others  than  I  could  have  wished.     I  have  made  up 
my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people  against  the  combination  which  has  beeu 
made   against  me.     The  Eepublican   leaders    have  formed   an  alliance  —  an 
unholy,   unnatural    alliance  —  with   a   portion    of   the  unscrupulous  Federal 
office-holders.     I    intend  to  fight  that  allied  army  wherever    I    meet   them. 
I  know  they  deny  the  alliance,  while  avoiding  the  common  purpose  ;  but  yet 
these  men,  who  are  trying  to  divide  the  Democratic  party  for  the  purpose  of 
electing  a  Picpublican  Senator  in  my  place,  are  just  as  much  the  agents,  the 
tools,  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Lincoln  as  if  they  were  avowed  Kepublicans,  and 
expect  their  reward  for  their  services  when  the  Eepublicans  come  into  power. 
I  shall  deal  with  these  allied  forces  just  as  the  Eussians  dealt  with  the  Allies 
at  Sebastopol.    The  Eussians,  when  they  fired  a  broadside  at  the  common  enemy, 
did  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  it  hit  a  Frenchman,  an  Englishman,  or  a  Turk, 
nor  will  I  stop,  nor  shall  I  stop  to  inquire  whether  my  blows  hit  the  Eepubli- 
can leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the  Federal  offices,  and  yet  acting 
in  concert  with  the  Eepublicans  to  defeat  the  Democratic  party  and  its  nomi- 
nees.     I  do  not  include  all  of  the  Federal  office-holders  in  this  remark.     Such 
of  them  as  are  Democrats  and  show  their  Democracy  by  remaining  inside  of 
the   Democratic   organization   and    supporting  its    nominees,   I    recognize    as 
Democrats;  but  those  who,  having  been  defeated  inside  of  the  organization, 
go  outside  and  attempt  to  divide  and  destroy  the  party  in  concert  with  the 
Eepublican  leaders,  have   ceased  to   be  Democrats,  and   belong  to  the  allied 
army,  whose  avowed  object  is  to  elect  the  Eepublician  ticket  by  dividing  and 
destroying  the  Democratic  party. 

My  friends,  I  have  exhausted  myself,  and  I  certainly  have  fatigued  you, 
in  the  long  and  desultory  remarks  winch  I  have  made.  It  is  now  two  nights 
since  I  have  been  in  bed,  and  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  a  little  sleep.  I  will, 
however,  have  an  opportunity  of  meeting  you  face  to  face,  and  addressing  you 
on  more  than  one  occasion  before  the  November  election.  In  conclusion,  I 
must  again  say  to  you,  justice  to  my  own  feelings  demands  it,  that  my  grati- 
tude for  the  welcome  you  have  extended  to  me  on  this  occasion  knows  no 
bounds,  and  can  be  described  by  no  language  which  I  can  command.  I  see 
that  I  am  literally  at  home  when  among  my  constituents.  This  welcome  has 
amply  repaid  me  for  every  effort  that  I  have  made  in  the  public  service 
during  nearly  twenty-five  years  that  I  have  held  office  at  your  hands.  It 
not  only  compensates  me  for  the  past,  but  it  furnishes  an  inducement  and 
incentive  for  future  effort  which  no  man,  no  matter  how  patriotic,  can  feel 
who  has  not  witnessed  the  magnificent  reception  you  have  extended  to  me 
to-night  on  my  return. 


22  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

SPEECH   OF   HON.   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

IN  REPLY  TO  SENATOR  DOUGLAS. 

Delivered  at  Chicago,  Saturday  Evening,  July  10,  1858.     (Mr.  Douglas  was 

not  present.) 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  introduced  by  C.  L.  Wilson,  Esq. ;  and  as  he  made  his 
appearance  he  was  greeted  with  a  perfect  storm  of  applause.  For  some 
moments  the  enthusiasm  continued  unabated.  At  last,  when  by  a  wave  of 
his  hand  partial  silence  was  restored,  Mr.  Lincoln  said  :  — 

My  Fellow-Citizens  :  On  yesterday  evening,  upon  the  occasion  of  the 
reception  given  to  Senator  Douglas,  I  was  furnished  with  a  seat  very  conven- 
ient for  hearing  him,  and  was  otherwise  very  courteously  treated  by  him  and 
his  friends,  and  for  which  I  thank  him  and  them.  During  the  course  of  his 
remarks  my  name  was  mentioned  in  such  a  way  as,  I  suppose,  renders  it  at 
least  not  improper  that  I  should  make  some  sort  of  reply  to  him.  I  shall 
not  attempt  to  follow  him  in  the  precise  order  in  which  he  addressed  the 
assembled  multitude  upon  that  occasion,  though  I  shall  perhaps  do  so  in  the 
main. 

There  was  one  question  to  which  he  asked  the  attention  of  the  crowd, 
which  I  deem  of  somewhat  less  importance  —  at  least  of  propriety  for  me  to 
dwell  upon  —  than  the  others,  which  he  brouglit  in  near  the  close  of  his 
speech,  and  which  I  think  it  would  not  be  entirely  proper  for  me  to  omit 
attending  to,  and  yet  if  I  were  not  to  give  some  attention  to  it  now,  I  should 
probably  forget  it  altogether.  While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  allow  me  to  say 
that  I  do  not  intend  to  indulge  in  that  inconvenient  mode  sometimes  adopted 
in  public  speaking,  of  reading  from  documents ;  but  I  shall  depart  from  that 
rule  so  far  as  to  read  a  little  scrap  from  his  speech,  which  notices  this  first 
topic  of  which  I  shall  speak,  —  that  is,  provided  I  can  find  it  in  the  paper. 

"  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people  against  the  combination  that 
has  been  made  against  me;  the  RepubHcan  leaders  having  formed  an  alliance  —  an 
unholy  and  unnatural  alliance  —  M'ith  a  portion  of  unscrupulous  Federal  office-hold- 
ers. I  intend  to  fight  that  allied  army  wherever  I  meet  them.  I  know  they  deny 
the  alliance ;  but  yet  these  men  who  are  trying  to  divide  the  Democratic  party  for 
the  purpose  of  electing  a  Republican  Senator  in  my  place  are  just  as  much  the  agents 
and  tools  of  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Hence  I  shall  deal  with  this  allied  army 
just  as  the  Russians  dealt  with  the  Allies  at  Sebastopol,  — that  is,  the  Russians  did 
not  stop  to  inquire,  when  they  fired  a  broadside,  whether  it  hit  an  Englishman,  a 
Frenchman,  or  a  Turk.  Nor  will  I  stop  to  inquire,  nor  shall  I  hesitate,  whether  my 
blows  shall  hit  these  Republican  leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the  Federal 
offices,  and  yet  acting  in  concert  with  them." 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  is  not  that  very  alarming  ?  Just  to  think  of  it ! 
right  at  the  outset  of  his  canvass  I,  a  poor,  kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gentle- 
man, —  I  am  to  be  slain  in  this  way  !  Why,  my  friend  the  Judge  is  not  only, 
as  it  turns  out,  not  a  dead  lion,  nor  even  a  living  one,  —  he  is  the  rugged 
liussian  Bear ! 

Rut  if  they  will  have  it  —  for  he  says  that  we  deny  it  —  that  there  is  any 
such  alliance,  as  he  says  there  is,  —  and  I  don't  propose  hanging  very  much 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  23 

upon  this  question  of  veracity,  —  but  if  lie  will  have  it  that  there  is  such  an 
alliance,  —  that  the  Administration  men  and  we  are  allied,  and  we  stand  in 
the  attitude  of  English,  French,  and  Turk,  he  occupying  the  position  of  the 
Eussian,  in  that  case  1  beg  that  he  will  indulge  us  while  we  barely  suggest  to 
him  that  these  allies  took  Sebastopol. 

Gentlemen,  only  a  few  more  words  as  to  this  alliance.  For  my  part,  I  have 
to  say  that  whether  there  be  such  an  alliance  depends,  so  far  as  I  know,  upon 
what  may  be  a  right  definition  of  the  term  "  alliance."  If  for  the  Eepublican 
party  to  see  the  other  great  party  to  which  they  are  opposed  divided  among 
themselves,  and  not  try  to  stop  the  division,  and  rather  be  glad  of  it,  —  if  that 
is  an  alliance,  I  confess  I  am  in ;  but  if  it  is  meant  to  be  said  that  the  Kepub- 
licans  had  formed  an  alliance  going  beyond  that,  by  which  there  is  contribu- 
tion of  money  or  sacrifice  of  principle  on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  so  far  as 
the  Eepublican  party  is  concerned,  —  if  there  be  any  such  thing,  I  protest 
that  I  neither  know  anything  of  it,  nor  do  I  believe  it.  I  will,  however,  say, 
—  as  I  think  this  branch  of  the  argument  is  lugged  in,  —  I  would  before 
I  leave  it,  state,  for  the  benefit  of  those  concerned,  that  one  of  those  same 
Buchanan  men  did  once  tell  me  of  an  argument  that  he  made  for  his  opposition 
to  Judge  Douglas.  He  said  that  a  friend  of  our  Senator  Douglas  had  been 
talking  to  him,  and  had,  among  other  things,  said  to  him  :  "  Why,  you  don't 
want  to  beat  Douglas  ? "  "  Yes,"  said  he,  "  I  do  want  to  beat  him,  and  I  will 
tell  you  why.  I  believe  his  original  Nebraska  bill  was  right  in  the  abstract, 
but  it  was  wrong  in  the  time  that  it  was  brought  forward.  It  was  wrong 
in  the  application  to  a  Territory  in  regard  to  which  the  question  had  been 
settled;  it  was  brought  forward  at  a  time  when  nobody  asked  him;  it  wrs 
tendered  to  the  South  when  the  South  had  not  asked  for  it,  but  when  they 
could  not  well  refuse  it ;  and  for  this  same  reason  he  forced  that  question  upon 
our  party.  It  has  sunk  the  best  men  all  over  the  nation,  everywhere ;  and  now, 
when  our  President,  struggling  with  the  difficulties  of  this  man's  getting  up, 
has  reached  the  very  hardest  point  to  turn  in  the  case,  he  deserts  him  and  I 
am  for  putting  him  where  he  will  trouble  us  no  more." 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  my  argument ;  that  is  not  my  argument  at  all. 
I  have  only  been  stating  to  you  the  argument  of  a  Buchanan  man.  You  will 
judge  if  there  is  any  force  in  it. 

Popular  sovereignty !  everlasting  popular  sovereignty !  Let  us  for  a 
moment  inquire  into  this  vast  matter  of  popular  sovereignty.  What  is  pop- 
ular sovereignty  ?  We  recollect  that  at  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  this 
struggle  there  was  another  name  for  the  same  thing,  — "  Squatter  Sover- 
eignty." It  was  not  exactly  Popular  Sovereignty,  but  Squatter  Sovereignty. 
What  do  those  terms  mean  ?  What  do  those  terms  mean  when  used  now  ? 
And  vast  credit  is  taken  by  our  friend  the  Judge  in  regard  to  his  support  of 
it,  when  he  declares  the  last  years  of  his  life  have  been,  and  all  the  future 
years  of  his  life  shall  be,  devoted  to  this  matter  of  popular  sovereignty.  What 
is  it  ?  Why,  it  is  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  !  What  was  Squatter  Sover- 
eignty ?  I  suppose  if  it  had  any  significance  at  all,  it  was  the  right  of  the 
people  to  govern  themselves,  to  be  sovereign  in  their  own  affairs  while  they 
were  squatted  down  in  a  country  not  their  own,  while  they  had  squatted  on  a 
Territory  that  did  not  belong  to  them,  in  the  sense  that  a  State  belongs  to  the 
people  who  inhabit  it,  —  when  it  belonged  to  the  nation ;  such  right  to  govern 
themselves  was  called  "  Squatter  Sovereignty." 

Now,  I  wish  you  to  mark.  What  has  become  of  that  Squatter  Sovereignty  ? 
What  has  become  of  it  ?     Can  you  get  anybody  to  tell  you  now  that  the 


24  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

people  of  a  Territory  have  any  authority  to  govern  tliemselves,  in  regard  to  this 
mooted  question  of  slavery,  before  they  form  a  State  Constitution  ?  No  such 
thing  at  all,  although  there  is  a  general  running  fire,  and  although  there  has 
been  a  hurrah  made  in  every  speech  on  that  side,  assuming  that  policy  had 
given  the  people  of  a  Territory  the  right  to  govern  themselves  upon  this  ques- 
tion ;  yet  the  point  is  dodged.  To-day  it  has  been  decided  —  no  more  than 
a  year  ago  it  was  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  is 
insisted  upon  to-day  —  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  have  no  right  to  exclude 
slavery  from  a  Territory ;  that  if  any  one  man  chooses  to  take  slaves  into  a 
Territory,  all  the  rest  of  the  people  have  no  right  to  keep  them  out.  This 
being  so,  and  this  decision  being  made  one  of  the  points  that  the  Judge 
approved,  and  one  in  the  approval  of  which  he  says  he  means  to  keep  me 
down,  —  put  me  down  I  should  not  say,  for  I  have  never  been  up.  He 
says  he  is  in  favor  of  it,  and  sticks  to  it,  and  expects  to  win  his  battle  on 
that  decision,  which  says  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  Squatter  Sovereignty, 
but  that  any  one  man  may  take  slaves  into  a  Territory,  and  all  the  otlier  men 
in  the  Territory  may  be  opposed  to  it,  and  yet  by  reason  of  the  Constitution 
they  cannot  prohibit  it.  When  tliat  is  so,  how  much  is  left  of  this  vast  matter 
of  Squatter  Sovereignty,  I  should  like  to  know  ? 

When  we  get  back,  we  get  to  the  point  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a 
Constitution.  Kansas  was  settled,  for  example,  in  1854.  It  was  a  Territory 
yet,  without  having  formed  a  constitution,  in  a  very  regular  way,  for  three 
years.  All  this  time  negro  slavery  could  be  taken  in  by  any  few  individuals, 
and  by  that  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  the  Judge  approves,  all  the 
rest  of  the  people  cannot  keep  it  out ;  but  when  they  come  to  make  a  consti- 
tution, they  may  say  they  will  not  have  slavery.  But  it  is  there;  they  are 
obliged  to  tolerate  it  some  way,  and  all  experience  shows  it  will  be  so,  for 
they  will  not  take  the  negro  slaves  and  absolutely  deprive  the  owners  of  them. 
All  experience  shows  this  to  be  so.  All  that  space  of  time  that  runs  from 
the  beginning  of  the  settlement  of  the  Territory  until  there  is  sufficiency  of 
people  to  make  a  State  constitution,  —  all  that  portion  of  time  popular  sov- 
ereignty is  given  up.  The  seal  is  absolutely  put  down  upon  it  by  the  court 
decision,  and  Judge  Douglas  puts  his  own  upon  the  top  of  that;  yet  he  is 
appealing  to  the  people  to  give  him  vast  credit  for  his  devotion  to  popular 
sovereignty. 

Again,  when  we  get  to  the  question  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  a 
State  constitution  as  they  please,  to  form  it  with  slavery  or  without  slavery, 
—  if  that  is  anything  new,  I  confess  I  don't  know  it.  Has  there  ever  been  a 
time  wlien  anybody  said  that  any  other  than  the  people  of  a  Territory  itself 
should  form  a  constitution  ?  What  is  now  in  it  that  Judoe  Douolas  should 
have  fought  several  years  of  his  life,  and  pledge  himself  to  fight  all  the  remain- 
ing years  of  his  life  for  ?  Can  Judge  Douglas  find  anybody  on  earth  that  said 
that  anybody  else  should  form  a  constitution  for  a  people  ?  [A  voice,  "Yes."] 
Well,  I  should  like  you  to  name  him ;  I  should  like  to  know  who  he  was. 
[Same  voice,  "  John  Calhoun."] 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  No,  sir,  I  never  heard  of  even  John  Calhoun  sa5nng  such  a 
thing.  He  insisted  on  the  same  principle  as  Judge  Douglas ;  but  his  mode  of 
applying  it,  in  fact,  was  wrong.  It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  ask  this  crowd 
whenever  a  Republican  said  anything  against  it.  They  never  said  anything 
against  it,  but  they  have  constantly  spoken  for  it ;  and  whoever  will  under- 
take to  examine  the  platform,  and  the  speeches  of  responsible  men  of  the  party, 
and  of  irresponsible  men,  too,  if  you  please,  will  be  unable  to  find  one  word 


AND    STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  25 

from  anybody  in  the  Eepublican  ranks  opposed  to  that  Popular  Sovereignty 
which  Judge  Douglas  thinks  that  he  has  invented.  I  suppose  that  Judge 
Douglas  will  claim,  in  a  little  while,  that  he  is  the  inventor  of  the  idea  that 
the  people  should  govern  themselves  ;  that  nobody  ever  thought  of  such  a 
tiling  until  he  brought  it  forward.  We  do  not  remember  that  in  that  old 
Declaration  of  Independence  it  is  said  that  "  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self- 
evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness  ;  that  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted 
among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 
There"  is  the  origin  of  Popular  Sovereignty.  Who,  then,  shall  come  in  at  this 
day  and  claim  that  be  invented  it  ? 

The  Lecompton  Constitution  connects  itself  with  tliis  question,  for  it  is  in 
this  matter  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  our  friend  Judge  Douglas 
claims  such  vast  credit.  I  agree  that  in  opposing  the  Lecompton  Constitu- 
tion, so  far  as  I  can  perceive,  he  was  right.  I  do  not  deny  that  at  all ;  and, 
gentlemen,  you  will  readily  see  why  I  could  not  deny  it,  even  if  I  wanted  to. 
But  I  do  not  wish  to ;  for  all  the  Republicans  in  the  nation  opposed  it,  and 
they  would  have  opposed  it  just  as  much  without  Judge  Douglas's  aid  as  with 
it.  They  had  all  taken  ground  against  it  long  before  he  did.  Why,  the 
reason  that  he  urges  against  that  Constitution,  I  urged  against  him  a  year 
before.  I  have  the  printed  speech  in  my  hand.  The  argument  that  he  makes, 
w^hy  that  Constitution  should  not  be  adopted,  that  the  people  were  not  fairly 
represented  nor  allowed  to  vote,  I  pointed  out  in  a  speech  a  year  ago,  which 
I  hold  in  my  hand  now,  that  no  fair  chance  was  to  be  given  to  the  people. 
["Ptead  it,  Read  it."]  I  shall  not  waste  your  time  by  trying  to  read  it. 
["Read  it,  Read  it."]  Gentlemen,  reading  from  speeches  is  a  very  tedious 
business,  particularly  for  an  old  man  that  has  to  put  on  spectacles,  and  more 
so  if  the  man  be  so  tall  that  he  has  to  bend  over  to  the  light. 

A  little  more,  now,  as  to  this  matter  of  Popular  Sovereignty  and  the 
Lecompton  Constitution.  The  Lecompton  Constitution,  as  the  Judge  tells 
us,  was  defeated.  The  defeat  of  it  was  a  good  thing,  or  it  was  not.  He  thinks 
the  defeat  of  it  was  a  good  thing,  and  so  do  I,  and  we  agree  in  that.  Who 
defeated  it  ? 

A  voice  :  Judge  Douglas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Yes,  he  furnished  himself,  and  if  you  suppose  he  controlled 
the  other  Democrats  that  went  with  him,  he  furnished  three  votes  ;  while  the 
Republicans  furnished  twenty. 

That  is  what  he  did  to  defeat  it.  In  the  House  of  Representatives  he  and 
his  friends  furnished  some  twenty  votes,  and  the  Republicans  furnished  ninety 
odd.     Now  who  was  it  that  did  the  work  ? 

A  voice :  Douglas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Why,  yes,  Douglas  did  it !     To  be  sure  he  did. 

Let  us,  however,  put  that  proposition  another  way.  The  Republicans  could 
not  have  done  it  without  Judge  Douglas.  Could  he  have  done  it  without  them  ? 
Which  could  have  come  the  nearest  to  doing  it  without  the  other  ? 

A  voice :  Who  killed  the  bill  ? 

Another  voice :  Douglas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Ground  was  taken  against  it  by  the  Republicans  long  before 
Douglas  did  it.  The  proportion  of  opposition  to  that  measure  is  about  five  to 
one. 

A  voice  :  Why  don't  they  come  out  on  it  ? 

4 


26  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  You  don't  know  what  you  are  talking  about,  my  friend.  I 
am  quite  willing  to  answer  any  gentleman  in  the  crowd  who  asks  an  intelligent 
question. 

Now,  who  in  all  this  country  has  ever  found  any  of  our  friends  of  Judge 
Douglas's  way  of  thinking,  and  who  have  acted  upon  this  main  question,  that 
has  ever  thought  of  uttering  a  word  in  behalf  of  Judge  Trumbull  ? 

A  voice :  We  have. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  I  defy  you  to  show  a  printed  resolution  passed  in  a  Demo- 
cratic meeting  —  I  take  it  upon  myself  to  defy  any  man  to  show  a  printed 
resolution  of  a  Democratic  meeting,  large  or  small  —  in  favor  of  Judge  Trum- 
bull, or  any  of  the  five  to  one  Eepublicans  who  beat  that  bill.  Everything  must 
be  for  the  Democrats  !  They  did  everything,  and  the  five  to  the  one  that  really 
did  the  thing  they  snub  over,  and  they  do  not  seem  to  remember  that  they  have 
an  existence  upon  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Gentlemen,  I  fear  that  I  shall  become  tedious.  I  leave  this  branch  of  the 
subject  to  take  hold  of  another.  I  take  up  that  part  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech 
in  which  he  respectfully  attended  to  me. 

Judge  Douglas  made  two  points  upon  my  recent  speech  at  Springfield.  He 
says  they  are  to  be  the  issues  of  this  campaign.  The  first  one  of  these  points 
he  bases  upon  the  language  in  a  speech  which  I  delivered  at  Springfield,  which 
I  believe  I  can  quote  correctly  from  memory.  I  said  there  that  "  we  are  now 
far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  instituted  for  the  avowed  object,  and 
with  the  confident  promise,  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation  ;  under  the 
operation  of , that  policy,  that  agitation  had  only  not  ceased,  but  had  constantly 
augmented."  "  I  believe  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached 
and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  Gov- 
ernment cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free."  "  I  do  not  expect 
the  Union  to  be  dissolved,"  —  I  am  quoting  from  my  speech,  —  "I  do  not 
expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing  or  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  spread  of  it  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest,  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push 
it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  North  as  well  as 
South." 

AVhat  is  the  paragraph  ?  In  this  paragraph,  which  I  have  quoted  in  your 
hearing,  and  to  which  I  ask  the  attention  of  all,  Judge  Douglas  thinks  he  dis- 
covers great  political  heresy.  I  want  your  attention  particularly  to  what  he 
has  inferred  from  it.  He  says  I  am  in  favor  of  making  all  the  States  of  this 
Union  uniform  in  all  their  internal  regulations  ;  that  in  all  their  domestic  con- 
cerns I  am  in  favor  of  making  them  entirely  uniform.  He  draws  this  inference 
from  the  language  I  have  quoted  to  you.  He  says  that  I  am  in  favor  of  mak- 
ing war  by  the  North  upon  the  South  for  the  extinction  of  slavery  ;  that  I  am 
also  in  favor  of  inviting  (as  he  expresses  it)  tlie  South  to  a  war  upon  the  North 
for  the  purpose  of  nationalizing  slavery.  Now,  it  is  singular  enough,  if  you 
will  carefully  read  that  passage  over,  that  I  did  not  say  that  I  was  in  favor  of 
anything  in  it.  I  only  said  what  I  expected  would  take  place.  I  made  a  pre- 
diction only,  —  it  may  have  been  a  foolish  one,  perhaps.  I  did  not  even  say 
that  I  desired  that  slavery  should  be  put  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I 
do  say  so  now,  however,  so  there  need  be  no  longer  any  difliculty  about  that. 
It  may  be  written  down  in  the  great  speech. 

Gentlemen,  Judge  Douglas  informed  you  that  this  speech  of  mine  was  prob- 
ably carefully  prepared.     I  admit  that  it  was.     I  am  not  master  of  language  ; 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  27 

I  have  not  a  fine  education ;  I  am  not  capable  of  entering  into  a  disquisition 
upon  dialectics,  as  I  believe  you  call  it ;  but  I  do  not  believe  the  language  I 
employed  bears  any  such  construction  as  Judge  Douglas  puts  upon  it.  But  I 
don't  care  about  a  quibble  in  regard  to  words.  I  know  what  I  meant,  and  I  will 
not  leave  this  crowd  in  doubt,  if  I  can  explain  it  to  them,  what  I  really  meant 
in  the  use  of  that  paragraph. 

I  am  not,  in  the  first  place,  unaware  that  this  Government  has  endured 
eighty-two  years  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  know  that.  I  am  tolerably  well 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  country,  and  I  know  that  it  has  endured 
eighty-two  years  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  hclieve  —  and  that  is  what  I  meant 
to  allude  to  there  —  I  hcUcve  it  has  endured,  because  during  all  that  time,  until 
the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  public  mind  did  rest  all  the  time  in 
the  belief  that  slavery  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  That  was  what 
gave  us  the  rest  that  we  had  through  that  period  of  eighty-two  years,  —  at 
least,  so  I  believe.  I  have  always  hated  slavery,  I  think,  as  much  as  any 
Abolitionist,  —  I  have  been  an  Old  Line  Whig,  —  I  have  always  hated  it ;  but 
I  have  always  been  quiet  about  it  until  this  new  era  of  the  introduction  of  the 
Nebraska  bill  began.  I  always  believed  that  everybody  was  against  it,  and  that 
it  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  [Pointing  to  Mr.  Browning,  who  stood 
near  by.]  Browning  thought  so  ;  the  great  mass  of  the  nation  have  rested  in 
the  belief  that  slavery  was  in  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  They  had  reason 
so  to  believe. 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  its  attendant  history  led  the  people 
to  believe  so  ;  and  that  such  was  the  belief  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
itself,  why  did  those  old  men,  about  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, decree  that  slavery  should  not  go  into  the  new  Territory,  where  it  had 
not  already  gone  ?  Why  declare  that  within  twenty  years  the  African  Slave 
Trade,  by  which  slaves  are  supplied,  might  be  cut  off  by  Congress  ?  Why  were 
all  these  acts  ?  I  might  enumerate  more  of  these  acts  ;  but  enough.  What 
were  they  but  a  clear  indication  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  intended 
and  expected  the  ultimate  extinction  of  that  institution  ?  And  now,  when  I 
say,  as  I  said  in  my  speech,  that  Judge  Douglas  has  quoted  from,  when  I  say 
that  I  think  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  resist  the  farther  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  with  the  belief  that  it  is  in  course 
of  ultimate  extinction,  I  only  mean  to  say  that  they  will  place  it  where  the 
founders  of  this  Government  originally  placed  it. 

1  have  said  a  hundred  times,  and  1  have  now  no  inclination  to  take  it  back, 
that  I  believe  there  is  no  right,  and  ought  to  be  no  inclination,  in  the  people 
of  the  Free  States  to  enter  into  the  Slave  States,  and  interfere  with  the  question 
of  slavery  at  all.  I  have  said  that  always ;  Judge  Douglas  has  heard  me  say  it, 
if  not  quite  a  hundred  times,  at  least  as  good  as  a  hundred  times ;  and  when 
it  is  said  that  I  am  in  favor  of  interfering  with  slavery  where  it  exists,  I  know 
it  is  unwarranted  by  anytliing  I  have  ever  intended,  and,  as  I  believe,  by  any- 
thing I  have  ever  said.  If,  by  any  means,  I  have  ever  used  language  which 
could  fairly  be  so  construed  (as,  however,  I  believe  I  never  have),  I  now  cor- 
rect it. 

So  much,  then,  for  the  inference  that.  Judge  Douglas  draws,  that  I  am  in 
favor  of  setting  the  sections  at  war  with  one  another.  I  know  that  I  never 
meant  any  such  thing,  and  I  believe  that  no  fair  mind  can  infer  any  such 
thing  from  anything  I  have  ever  said. 

Now,  in  relation  to  his  inference  that  I  am  in  favor  of  a  general  consoli- 
dation of  all  the  local  institutions  of  the  various  States.     I  will  attend  to  that 


28  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

for  a  little  while,  and  try  to  inquire,  if  I  can,  liow  on  earth  it  could  be  that 
any  man  could  draw  such  an  inference  from  anything  I  said.  I  have  said, 
very  many  times,  in  Judge  Douglas's  hearing  that  no  man  believed  more  than 
I  in  the  principle  of  self-government;  that  it  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  my 
ideas  of  just  government,  from  beginning  to  end.  I  have  denied  that  his  use 
of  that  term  applies  properly.  But  for  the  thing  itself,  I  deny  that  any  man 
has  ever  gone  ahead  of  me  in  his  devotion  to  the  principle,  whatever  he  may 
have  done  in  efficiency  in  advocating  it.  I  think  that  1  have  said  it  in  your 
hearing,  that  I  believe  each  individual  is  naturally  entitled  to  do  as  he  pleases 
with  himself  and  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  so  far  as  it  in  no  wise  interferes  with 
any  other  man's  rights  ;  that  each  community,  as  a  State,  has  a  right  to  do 
exactly  as  it  pleases  with  all  the  concerns  within  that  State  that  interferes 
with  the  right  of  no  other  State  ;  and  that  the  General  Government,  upon 
principle,  has  no  right  to  interfere  with  anything  other  than  that  general  class 
of  things  that  does  concern  the  whole.  I  have  said  tliat  at  all  times.  I  have 
said,  as  illustrations,  that  I  do  not  believe  in  the  right  of  Illinois  to  interfere 
with  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana,  the  oyster  laws  of  Virginia,  or  the  liquor 
laws  of  Maine.  I  have  said  these  things  over  and  over  again,  and  I  repeat 
them  here  as  my  seutiments. 

How  is  it,  then,  that  Judge  Douglas  infers,  because  I  hope  to  see  slavery 
put  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  Illinois  going  over  and  interfering 
with  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana  ?  What  can  authorize  him  to  draw  any 
such  inference  ?  I  suppose  there  might  be  one  tiling  that  at  least  enabled  him 
to  draw  such  an  inference  that  would  not  be  true  with  me  or  many  others, 
that  is,  because  he  looks  upon  all  this  matter  of  slavery  as  an  exceedingly 
little  thing,  —  this  matter  of  keeping  one-sixth  of  the  population  of  the  whole 
nation  in  a  state  of  oppression  and  tyranny  unequalled  in  the  world.  He 
looks  upon  it  as  being  an  exceedingly  little  thing,  —  only  equal  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana  ;  as  something  having  no  moral  ques- 
tion in  it ;  as  something  on  a  par  with  the  question  of  whether  a  man  shall 
pasture  his  land  with  cattle,  or  plant  it  with  tobacco ;  so  little  and  so  small  a 
thing  that  he  concludes,  if  I  could  desire  that  if  anything  should  be  done  to 
bring  about  the  ultimate  extinction  of  that  little  thing,  I  must  be  in  favor  of 
bringing  about  an  amalgamation  of  all  the  other  little  things  in  the  Union. 
Now,  it  so  happens  —  and  there,  I  presume,  is  tlie  foundation  of  this  mistake 
—  that  the  Judge  thinks  thus ;  and  it  so  happens  that  there  is  a  vast  portion 
of  the  American  people  that  do  not  look  upon  that  matter  as  being  this  very 
little  thing.  They  look  upon  it  as  a  vast  moral  evil ;  they  can  prove  it  as 
such  by  the  writings  of  those  who  gave  us  the  blessings  of  liberty  which  we 
enjoy,  and  that  they  so  looked  upon  it,  and  not  as  an  evil  merely  confining 
itself  to  the  States  wdiere  it  is  situated  ;  and  wliile  we  agree  that,  by  the  Con- 
stitution we  assented  to,  in  the  States  wliere  it  exists,  we  have  no  right  to 
interfere  with  it,  because  it  is  in  the  Constitution ;  and  we  are  by  both  duty 
and  inclination  to  stick  by  that  Constitution,  in  all  its  letter  and  spirit,  from 
beginning  to  end. 

So  much,  then,  as  to  my  disposition  —  my  wish  —  to  have  all  the  State 
Legislatures  blotted  out,  and  to  have  one  consolidated  government,  aud  a  uni- 
formity of  domestic  regulations  in  all  the  States,  by  which  I  suppose  it  is 
meant,  if  we  raise  corn  here,  we  must  make  sugar-cane  grow  here  too,  and  we 
must  make  those  which  grow  North  grow  in  the  South.  All  this  I  suppose 
he  understands  I  am  in  favor  of  doing.     Now,  so  much  for  all  this  nonsense ; 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  29 

for  I  must  call  it  so.     The  Judge  can  have  no  issue  with  me  on  a  question  of 
establishing  uniformity  in  the  domestic  regulations  of  the  States, 

A  little  now  on  the  other  ])oint,  —  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Another  of 
the  issues  he  says  that  is  to  be  made  with  me  is  upon  his  devotion  to  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  and  my  opposition  to  it. 

I  have  expressed  heretofore,  and  I  now  repeat,  my  opposition  to  the  Dred 
Scott  decision ;  but  I  should  be  allowed  to  state  tlie  nature  of  that  opposition, 
and  I  ask  your  indulgence  while  I  do  so.  What  is  fairly  implied  by  the  term 
Judge  Douglas  has  used,  "  resistance  to  the  decision  "  ?  I  do  not  resist  it.  If 
I  wanted  to  take  Dred  Scott  from  his  master,  I  would  be  interfering  with 
property,  and  that  terrible  difftculty  that  Judge  Douglas  speaks  of,  of  interfer- 
ing with  property,  would  arise.  But  I  am  doing  no  such  thing  as  that,  but  all 
that  I  am  doing  is  refusing  to  obey  it  as  a  political  rule.  If  I  were  in  Con- 
gress, and  a  vote  should  come  up  on  a  question  whether  slavery  should  be  pro- 
hibited in  a  new  Territory,  in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  I  would  vote 
that  it  should. 

That  is  what  I  should  do.  Judge  Douglas  said  last  night  that  before  the 
decision  he  might  advance  his  opinion,  and  it  might  be  contrary  to  the  deci- 
sion when  it  was  made  ;  but  after  it  was  made  he  would  abide  by  it  until  it 
was  reversed.  Just  so  !  We  let  this  property  abide  by  the  decision,  but  we 
will  try  to  reverse  that  decision.  We  will  try  to  put  it  where  Judge  Douglas 
would  not  object,  for  he  says  he  will  obey  it  uutil  it  is  reversed.  Somebod}'- 
has  to  reverse  that  decision,  since  it  is  made,  and  we  mean  to  reverse  it,  and 
we  mean  to  do  it  peaceably. 

What  are  the  uses  of  decisions  of  courts  ?  They  have  two  uses.  As  rules 
of  property  they  have  two  uses.  First,  they  decide  upon  the  question  before 
the  court.  They  decide  in  this  case  that  Dred  Scott  is  a  slave.  Nobody  resists 
that.  Not  only  that,  but  tliey  say  to  everybody  else,  that  persons  standing 
just  as  Dred  Scott  stands,  is  as  he  is.  That  is,  they  say  that  when  a  question 
comes  up  upon  another  person,  it  will  be  so  decided  again,  unless  the  court 
decides  in  another  way,  unless  the  court  overrules  its  decision.  Well,  we 
mean  to  do  what  we  can  to  have  the  court  decide  the  other  way.  That  is  one 
thing  we  mean  to  try  to  do. 

The  sacredness  that  Judge  Douglas  throws  around  this  decision  is  a  degree 
of  sacredness  that  has  never  been  before  thrown  around  any  other  decision. 
I  have  never  heard  of  such  a  thing.  Why,  decisions  apparently  contrar}^  to 
that  decision,  or  that  good  lawyers  thought  were  contrary  to  that  decision, 
have  been  made  by  that  very  court  before.  It  is  the  first  of  its  kind ;  it  is  an 
astonisher  in  legal  history.  It  is  a  new  wonder  of  the  world.  It  is  based 
upon  falsehood  in  the  main  as  to  the  facts ;  allegations  of  facts  upon  which  it 
stands  are  not  facts  at  all  in  many  instances,  and  no  decision  made  on  any 
question  —  the  first  instance  of  a  decision  made  under  so  many  unfavorable 
circumstances  — thus  placed,  has  ever  been  held  by  the  profession  as  law,  and 
it  has  always  needed  confirmation  before  the  lawyers  regarded  it  as  settled 
law.  But  Judo'e  Douglas  will  have  it  that  all  hands  must  take  this  extra- 
ordinary  decision,  made  under  these  extraordinary  circumstances,  and  give 
their  vote  in  Congress  in  accordance  with  it,  yield  to  it,  and  obey  it  in  every 
possible  sense.  Circumstances  alter  cases.  Do  not  gentlemen  here  remember 
the  case  of  that  same  Supreme  Court,  some  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  ago 
deciding  that  a  National  Bank  was  constitutional  ?  I  ask,  if  somebody  does 
not  remember  that  a  National  Bank  was  declared  to  be  constitutional  ?  Such 
is  the  truth,  whether  it  be  remembered  or  not.     The  Bank  charter  ran  out,  and 


30  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

a  re-cliarter  was  granted  by  Congress.  That  re-charter  was  laid  before  Gen- 
eral Jackson.  It  was  urged  upon  him,  when  he  denied  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Bank,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  it  was  constitutional ; 
and  tliat  General  Jackson  then  said  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  no  right  to 
lay  down  a  rule  to  govern  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Government,  the  mem- 
bers of  which  had  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  ;  that  each  member  had 
sworn  to  support  that  Constitution  as  he  understood  it.  I  will  venture  here 
to  say  that  I  have  heard  Judge  Douglas  say  that  he  approved  of  General 
Jackson  for  that  act.  What  has  now  become  of  all  his  tirade  about  "  resist- 
ance to  the  Supreme  Court "  ? 

My  fellow-citizens,  getting  back  a  little,  —  for  I  pass  from  these  points,  — 
when  Judge  Douglas  makes  his  threat  of  anniliilation  upon  the  "  alliance,"  he 
is  cautious  to  say  that  tliat  warfare  of  his  is  to  fall  upon  the  leaders  of  the 
Eepublican  party.  Almost  every  word  lie  utters,  and  every  distinction  he 
makes,  has  its  significance.  He  means  for  the  Republicans  who  do  not  count 
themselves  as  leaders,  to  be  his  friends ;  he  makes  no  fuss  over  them ;  it  is  the 
leaders  that  he  is  making  war  upon.  He  wauts  it  understood  that  the  mass 
of  the  Eepublican  party  are  really  his  friends.  It  is  only  the  leaders  that  are 
doing  something,  that  are  intolerant,  and  that  require  extermination  at  his 
hands.  As  this  is  clearly  and  unquestionably  the  light  in  which  he  presents 
that  matter,  I  want  to  ask  your  attention,  addressing  myself  to  the  Republicans 
here,  that  I  may  ask  you  some  questions  as  to  where  you,  as  the  Republican 
party,  would  be  placed  if  you  sustained  Judge  Douglas  in  his  present  position 
by  a  re-election  ?  I  do  not  claim,  gentlemen,  to  be  unselfish  ;  I  do  not  pretend 
that  I  would  not  like  to  go  to  the  United  States  Senate,  —  I  make  no  such 
hypocritical  pretence  ;  but  I  do  say  to  you  that  in  this  mighty  issue  it  is  noth- 
ing to  you  —  nothing  to  the  mass  of  the  people  of  the  nation,  —  whether  or 
not  Judge  Douglas  or  myself  shall  ever  be  heard  of  after  this  night;  it  may  be 
a  trifle  to  either  of  us,  but  in  connection  with  this  mighty  question,  upon 
which  hang  the  destinies  of  the  nation,  perhaps,  it  is  absolutely  nothing :  but 
where  will  you  be  placed  if  you  re-indorse  Judge  Douglas  ?  Don't  you  know 
how  apt  he  is,  how  exceedingly  anxious  he  is  at  all  times,  to  seize  upon  any- 
thing and  everything  to  persuade  you  that  something  he  has  done  you  did 
yourselves  ?  Why,  he  tried  to  persuade  you  last  night  that  our  Illinois  Legis- 
lature instructed  him  to  introduce  the  Nebraska  bill.  There  was  nobody  in 
that  Legislature  ever  thought  of  such  a  thing ;  and  when  he  first  introduced 
the  bill,  he  never  thought  of  it ;  but  still  he  fights  furiously  for  the  proposi- 
tion, and  that  he  did  it  because  there  was  a  standing  instruction  to  our 
Senators  to  be  always  introducing  ISTebraska  bills.  He  tells  you  he  is  for  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  he  tells  you  he  is  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  tells 
you,  not  in  his  speech  last  night,  but  substantially  in  a  former  speech,  that  he 
cares  not  if  slavery  is  voted  up  or  down  ;  he  tells  you  the  struggle  on  Lecomp- 
ton  is  past ;  it  may  come  up  again  or  not,  and  if  it  does,  he  stands  where  he 
stood  when,  in  spite  of  him  and  his  opposition,  you  built  up  the  Republi- 
can party.  If  you  indorse  him,  you  tell  him  you  do  not  care  whether 
slavery  be  voted  up  or  down,  and  he  will  close,  or  try  to  close  your  mouths 
with  his  declaration,  repeated  by  the  day,  the  week,  the  month,  and  the  year. 
Is  that  what  you  mean  ?  [Cries  of  "  No,"  one  voice  "  Yes."]  Yes,  I  have  no 
doubt  you  who  have  always  been  for  him,  if  you  mean  that.  No  doubt  of 
that,  soberly  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it.  I  think,  in  the  position  in  which 
Judge  Douglas  stood  in  opposing  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  he  was  right ; 
he  does  not  know  that  it  will  return,  but  if  it  does  we  may  know  where  to 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  31 

find  him,  and  if  it  does  not,  we  may  know  where  to  look  for  him,  and  that  is 
on  the  Cincinnati  platform.  ISTow,  I  could  ask  the  Eepublican  party,  after  all 
the  hard  names  that  Judge  Douglas  has  called  them  by,  —  all  his  repeated 
charges  of  their  inclination  to  marry  with  and  hug  negroes  ;  all  his  declara- 
tions of  Black  Eepublicanism :  by  the  way,  we  are  improving,  the  black  has 
got  rubbed  off,  —  but  with  all  that,  if  he  be  indorsed  by  Eepublican  votes, 
where  do  you  stand?  Plainly,  you  stand  ready  saddled,  bridled,  and  har- 
nessed, and  waiting  to  be  driven  over  to  the  slavery  extension  camp  of  the 
nation, — just  ready  to  be  driven  over,  tied  together  in  a  lot,  to  be  driven 
over,  every  man  with  a  rope  around  his  neck,  that  halter  being  held  by  Judge 
Douglas.  That  is  the  question.  If  Eepublican  men  have  been  in  earnest  in 
what  they  have  done,  I  think  they  had  better  not  do  it ;  but  I  think  that  the 
Republican  party  is  made  up  of  those  who,  as  far  as  they  can  peaceably,  will 
oppose  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  who  will  hope  for  its  ultimate  extinction. 
If  they  believe  it  is  wrong  in  grasping  up  the  new  lands  of  the  continent,  and 
keeping  them  from  the  settlement  of  free  white  laborers,  who  want  the  land 
to  bring  up  their  families  upon ;  if  they  are  in  earnest,  although  they  may 
make  a  mistake,  they  will  grow  restless,  and  the  time  will  come  when  they 
will  come  back  again  and  reorganize,  if  not  by  the  same  name,  at  least  upon 
the  same  principles  as  their  party  now  has.  It  is  better,  then,  to  save  the 
work  while  it  is  begun.  You  have  done  the  labor ;  maintain  it,  keep  it.  If 
men  choose  to  serve  you,  go  with  them  ;  but  as  you  have  made  up  your  organi- 
zation upon  principle,  stand  by  it ;  for,  as  surely  as  God  reigns  over  you,  and 
has  inspired  your  mind,  and  given  you  a  sense  of  propriety,  and  continues 
to  give  you  hope,  so  surely  will  you  still  cling  to  these  ideas,  and  you  will 
at  last  come  back  again  after  your  wanderings,  merely  to  do  your  work  over 
again. 

We  were  often, — more  than  once,  at  least,  —  in  the  course  of  Judge 
Douglas's  speech  last  night,  reminded  that  this  government  was  made  for 
white  men ;  that  he  believed  it  was  made  for  white  men.  "Well,  that  is  put- 
ting it  into  a  shape  in  which  no  one  wants  to  deny  it ;  but  the  Judge  then 
goes  into  his  passion  for  drawing  inferences  that  are  not  warranted.  I  protest, 
now  and  forever,  against  that  counterfeit  logic  which  presumes  that  because  I 
did  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave,  I  do  necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife. 
My  understanding  is  that  I  need  not  have  her  for  either,  but,  as  God  made 
us  separate,  we  can  leave  one  another  alone,  and  do  one  another  much  good 
thereby.  There  are  white  men  enough  to  marry  all  the  white  women,  and 
enough  black  men  to  marry  all  the  black  women  ;  and  in  God's  name  let  them 
be  so  married.  The  Judge  regales  us  with  the  terrible  enormities  that  take 
place  by  the  mixture  of  races  ;  that  the  inferior  race  bears  the  superior  down. 
Why,  Judge,  if  we  do  not  let  them  get  together  in  the  Territories,  they  won't 
mix  there. 

A  voice  :  Three  cheers  for  Lincoln.  (The  cheers  were  given  with  a  hearty 
good  will.) 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  I  should  say  at  least  that  that  is  a  self-evident  truth. 

Now,  it  happens  that  we  meet  together  once  every  year,  sometimes  about 
the  4th  of  July,  for  some  reason  or  other.  These  4th  of  July  gatherings  I 
suppose  have  their  uses.  If  you  will  indulge  me,  I  will  state  what  I  suppose 
to  be  some  of  them. 

We  are  now  a  mighty  nation ;  we  are  thirty,  or  about  thirty  millions  of 
people,  and  we  own  and  inhabit  about  one-fifteenth  part  of  the  dry  land  of  the 
whole  earth.     We  run  our  memory  back  over  the  pages  of  history  for  about 


32  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

eighty-two  years,  and  we  discover  that  we  were  then  a  very  small  people  iu 
point  of  numbers,  vastly  inferior  to  what  we  are  now,  with  a  vastly  less  extent 
of  country,  with  vastly  less  of  everything  we  deem  desirable  among  men ;  we 
look  upon  the  change  as  exceedingly  advantageous  to  us  and  to  our  posterity, 
and  we  fix  upon  something  that  happened  away  back,  as  in  some  way  or  other 
being  connected  with  this  rise  of  prosperity.  We  find  a  race  of  men  living  in 
that  day  whom  we  claim  as  our  fathers  and  grandfathers ;  they  were  iron 
men  ;  they  fought  for  the  principle  that  they  were  contending  for ;  and  we 
understood  that  by  what  they  then  did  it  has  followed  that  the  degree  of 
prosperity  wliich  we  now  enjoy  has  come  to  us.  We  hold  this  annual  cele- 
bration to  remind  ourselves  of  all  the  good  done  in  this  process  of  time,  of 
how  it  was  done  and  who  did  it,  and  how  we  are  historically  connected  with 
it ;  and  we  go  from  these  meetings  in  better  humor  with  ourselves,  we  feel 
more  attached  the  one  to  the  other,  and  more  firmly  bound  to  the  country  we 
inhabit.  In  every  way  we  are  better  men  in  the  age  and  race  and  country  in 
which  we  live,  for  these  celebrations.  But  after  we  have  done  all  this  we 
have  not  yet  reached  the  whole.  There  is  something  else  connected  with  it. 
We  have  —  besides  these,  men  descended  by  blood  from  our  ancestors  — 
among  us,  perhaps  half  our  people,  who  are  not  descendants  at  all  of  these 
men  ;  they  are  men  who  have  come  from  Europe,  —  German,  Irish,  French, 
and  Scandinavian,  —  men  that  have  come  from  Europe  themselves,  or  whose 
ancestors  have  come  hither  and  settled  here,  finding  themselves  our  equals  iu 
all  things.  If  they  look  back  through  this  history  to  trace  their  connection 
with  those  days  by  blood,  they  find  they  have  none,  they  cannot  carry  them- 
selves back  into  that  glorious  epoch  and  make  themselves  feel  that  they  are 
part  of  us  ;  but  when  they  look  through  that  old  Declaration  of  Independence, 
they  find  that  those  old  men  say  that  "  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident, 
that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  "  and  then  they  feel  that  that  moral  senti- 
ment, taught  in  that  day,  evidences  their  relation  to  those  men,  that  it  is  the 
father  of  all  moral  principle  in  them,  and  that  they  have  a  right  to  claim  it 
as  though  they  were  blood  of  the  blood,  and  flesh  of  the  flesh,  of  the  men  who 
wrote  that  Declaration ;  and  so  they  are.  That  is  the  electric  cord  in  that 
Declaration  that  links  the  hearts  of  patriotic  and  liberty-loving  men  together, 
that  will  link  those  patriotic  hearts  as  long  as  the  love  of  freedom  exists  in 
the  minds  of  men  throughout  the  world. 

Now,  sirs,  for  the  purpose  of  squaring  things  with  this  idea  of  "  don't  care 
if  slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted  down,"  for  sustaining  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
for  holding  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  mean  anything  at 
all,  we  have  Judge  Douglas  giving  his  exposition  of  what  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  means,  and  we  have  him  saying  that  the  people  of  America  are 
equal  to  the  people  of  England.  According  to  his  construction,  you  Germans 
are  not  connected  with  it.  Now,  I  ask  you  in  all  soberness,  if  all  these  things, 
if  indulged  in,  if  ratified,  if  confirmed  and  indorsed,  if  taught  to  our  children, 
and  repeated  to  them,  do  not  tend  to  rub  out  the  sentiment  of  liberty  in  the 
country,  and  to  transform  this  government  into  a  government  of  some  other 
form.  Those  arguments  that  are  made,  that  tlie  inferior  race  are  to  be  treated 
with  as  much  allowance  as  they  are  capable  of  enjoying ;  that  as  much  is  to 
be  done  for  them  as  their  condition  will  allow.  What  are  these  arguments  ? 
They  are  the  arguments  that  kings  have  made  for  enslaving  the  people  in  all 
ages  of  the  world.  You  will  find  that  all  the  arguments  in  favor  of  kingcraft 
were  of  this  class ;  they  always  bestrode  the  necks  of  the  people,  not  that  they 
wanted  to  do  it,  but  because  the  people  were  better  off  for  being  ridden.    That 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  33 

is  tlieir  argument,  and  this  argument  of  the  Judge  is  the  same  old  serpent 
that  says,  You  work,  and  I  eat ;  You  toil,  and  I  will  enjoy  the  fruits  of  it. 
Turn  in  whatever  way  you  will,  whether  it  come  from  the  mouth  of  a  king, 
an  excuse  for  enslaving  the  people  of  his  country,  or  from  the  mouth  of  men 
of  one  race  as  a  reason  for  enslaving  the  men  of  another  race,  it  is  all  the 
same  old  serpent ;  and  I  hold,  if  that  course  of  argumentation  that  is  made  for 
the  purpose  of  convincing  the  public  mind  that  we  should  not  care  about  this, 
should  be  granted,  it  does  not  stop  with  the  negro.  I  should  like  to  know  if, 
taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  declares  that  all  men  are 
equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where  will  it  stop  ?  If  one 
man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  not  another  say  it  does  not  mean 
some  other  man  ?  If  that  declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get  the  statute 
book,  in  which  we  find  it,  and  tear  it  out !  Who  is  so  bold  as  to  do  it  ?  If  it 
is  not  true,  let  us  tear  it  out!  [Cries  of  "No,  no."]  Let  us  stick  to  it,  then  ; 
let  us  stand  firmly  by  it,  then. 

It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions  that  make  necessities 
and  impose  them  upon  us ;  and  to  the  extent  that  a  necessity  is  imposed  upon 
a  man,  he  must  submit  to  it.  I  think  that  was  the  condition  in  which  we 
found  ourselves  when  we  established  this  government.  We  had  slavery  among 
us,  we  could  not  get  our  Constitution  unless  we  permitted  them  to  remain  in 
slavery,  we  could  not  secure  the  good  we  did  secure  if  we  grasped  for  more ; 
and  having  by  necessity  submitted  to  that  much,  it  does  not  destroy  the 
principle  that  is  the  charter  of  our  liberties.  Let  that  charter  stand  as  our 
standard. 

My  friend  has  said  to  me  that  I  am  a  poor  hand  to  quote  scripture.  I  will 
try  it  again,  however.  It  is  said  in  one  of  the  admonitions  of  our  Lord,  "  As 
your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  The  Saviour,  I  suppose, 
did  not  expect  that  any  human  creature  could  be  perfect  as  the  Father  in 
heaven ;  but  he  said,  "  As  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  per- 
fect." He  set  that  up  as  a  standard ;  and  he  who  did  most  toward  reaching 
that  standard,  attained  the  highest  degree  of  moral  perfection.  So  I  say  in 
relation  to  the  principle  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  let  it  be  as  nearly 
reached  as  we  can.  If  we  cannot  give  freedom  to  every  creature,  let  us  do 
nothing  that  will  impose  slavery  upon  any  other  creature.  Let  us  then  turn 
this  fvoverument  back  into  the  channel  in  which  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion  originally  placed  it.  Let  us  stand  firmly  by  each  other.  If  we  do  not  do 
so,  we  are  turning  in  the  contrary  direction,  that  our  friend  Judge  Douglas 
proposes  —  not  intentionally  —  as  working  in  the  traces  tend  to  make  this 
one  universal  slave  nation.  He  is  one  that  runs  in  that  direction,  and  as  such 
I  resist  him. 

My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desired  to  do,  and  I 
have  only  to  say.  Let  us  discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the 
other  man  ;  this  race  and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and 
therefore  they  must  be  placed  in  an  inferior  position  ;  discarding  our  standard 
that  we  have  left  us.  Let  us  discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people 
throughout  this  land,  until  we  shall  once  more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men 
are  created  equal. 

My  friends,  I  could  not,  without  launching  off  upon  some  new  topic,  which 
would  detain  you  too  long,  continue  to-night.  1  thank  you  for  tliis  most 
extensive  audience  that  you  have  furnished  me  to-night.  I  leave  you,  hoping 
that  the  lamp  of  liberty  will  burn  in  your  bosoms  until  there  shall  no  longer 
be  a  doubt  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal. 

6 


34  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS. 

Delivered  at  Bloomington,  III.,  July  16,  1858.     (Mr.  Lincoln  was  present.) 

Senator  Douglas  said  :  — 

Mr.  Chairman,  and  Fellow-citizens  of  McLean  County:  To  say  that 
I  am  profoundly  touched  by  the  hearty  welcome  you  have  extended  me,  and 
by  the  kind  and  complimentary  sentiments  you  have  expressed  toward  me,  is 
but  a  feeble  expression  of  the  feelings  of  my  heart. 

I  appear  before  you  this  evening  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  the  course 
which  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  pursue  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
upon  the  great  public  questions  which  have  agitated  the  country  since  I  last 
addressed  you.  I  am  aware  that  my  senatorial  course  has  been  arraigned,  not 
only  by  political  foes,  but  by  a  few  men  pretending  to  belong  to  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  and  yet  acting  in  alliance  with  the  enemies  of  that  party,  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  Eepublicans  to  Congress  in  this  State,  in  place  of  the  pre- 
sent Democratic  delegation.  I  desire  your  attention  whilst  I  address  you, 
and  then  I  will  ask  your  verdict  whether  I  have  not  in  all  things  acted  in 
entire  good  faith,  and  honestly  carried  out  the  principles,  the  professions,  and 
the  avowals  which  I  made  before  my  constituents  previous  to  my  going  to  the 
Senate. 

During  the  last  session  of  Congress  the  great  question  of  controversy  has 
been  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  Constitu- 
tion. I  need  not  inform  you  that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  I  took  bold, 
determined,  and  unrelenting  ground  in  opposition  to  that  Lecompton  Constitu- 
tion. My  reason  for  that  course  is  contained  in  the  fact  that  that  instrument 
was  not  tlie  act  and  deed  of  tlie  people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will, 
I  hold  it  to  be  a  fundamental  principle  in  all  free  governments  —  a  principle 
asserted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  underlying  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  the  Constitution  of  every  State  of  the  Union 
—  that  every  people  ought  to  have  the  right  to  form,  adopt,  and  ratify  the 
Constitution  under  which  they  are  to  live.  When  I  introduced  the  Nebraska 
bill  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  1854,  I  incorporated  in  it  the  pro- 
vision that  it  was  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  bill,  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave 
the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  insti- 
tutions in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  In  that  bill  the  pledge  was  distinctly  made  that  the  people  of  Kansas 
should  be  left  not  only  free,  but  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own 
domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves  ;  and  the  question  arose,  when  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  w-as  sent  into  Congress,  and  the  admission  of  Kansas 
not  only  asked,  but  attempted  to  be  forced  under  it,  "whether  or  not  that  Con- 
stitution was  the  free  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas  ?  No  man  pre- 
tends that  it  embodied  their  wilh  Every  man  in  America  knows  that  it  w-as 
rejected  by  the  people  of  Kansas,  by  a  majority  of  over  ten  thousand,  before 
the  attempt  was  made  in  Congress  to  force  the  Territory  into  the  Union  under 
that  Constitution.  I  resisted,  therefore,  the  Lecompton  Constitution  because  it 
was  a  violation  of  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  upon  which  all  our 
institutions  rest.    I  do  not  wish  to  mislead  you,  or  to  leave  you  in  doubt  as 


AND    STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  35 

to  the  motives  of  my  action.  I  did  not  oppose  the  Lecompton  Constitution 
upon  the  ground  of  the  slavery  clause  contained  in  it.  I  made  my  speech 
against  tliat  instrument  before  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  slavery  clause.  At 
the  time  I  made  it  I  did  not  know  whether  that  clause  would  be  voted  in  or 
out ;  whether  it  would  be  included  in  the  Constitution,  or  excluded  from  it ; 
and  it  made  no  difference  with  me  what  the  result  of  the  vote  was,  for  the 
reason  that  I  was  contending  for  a  principle,  under  which  you  have  no  more 
right  to  force  a  Free  State  upon  a  people  against  tlieir  will,  than  you  have  to 
force  a  Slave  State  upon  them  without  their  consent.  The  error  consisted  in 
attempting  to  control  the  free  action  of  the  people  of  Kansas  in  any  respect 
whatever.  It  is  no  argument  with  me  to  say  that  such  and  such  a  clause  of  the 
Constitution  was  not  palatable,  that  you  did  not  like  it ;  it  is  a  matter  of  no  con- 
sequence whether  you  in  Illinois  like  any  clause  in  the  Kansas  Constitution  or 
not ;  it  is  not  a  question  for  you,  but  it  is  a  question  for  the  people  of  Kansas. 
They  have  the  right  to  make  a  Constitution  in  accordance  with  their  own 
wishes,  and  if  you  do  not  like  it,  you  are  not  bound  to  go  there  and  live  under 
it.  We  in  Illinois  have  made  a  Constitution  to  suit  ourselves,  and  we  think 
we  have  a  tolerably  good  one  ;  but  whether  we  have  or  not,  it  is  nobody's  busi- 
ness but  our  own.  If  the  people  in  Kentucky  do  not  like  it,  they  need  not 
come  here  to  live  under  it ;  if  the  people  of  Indiana  are  not  satisfied  with  it, 
what  matters  it  to  us  ?  We,  and  we  alone,  have  the  right  to  a  voice  in  its 
adoption  or  rejection.  Reasoning  tlms,  my  friends,  my  efforts  were  directed  to 
the  vindication  of  the  great  principle  involving  the  right  of  the  people  of  each 
State  and  each  Territory  to  fprm  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions 
to  suit  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  our  common  country. 
I  am  rejoiced  to  be  enabled  to  say  to  you  that  we  fought  that  battle  until  we 
forced  the  advocates  of  the  Lecompton  instrument  to  abandon  the  attempt  of 
inflicting  it  upon  the  people  of  Kansas,  without  first  giving  them  an  opportu- 
nity of  rejecting  it.  When  we  compelled  them  to  abandon  that  effort,  they 
resorted  to  a  scheme.  They  agreed  to  refer  the  Constitution  back  to  the 
people  of  Kansas,  thus  conceding  the  correctness  of  the  principle  for  which  I 
had  contended,  and  granting  all  I  had  desired,  provided  the  mode  of  that  refer- 
ence and  the  mode  of  submission  to  the  people  had  been  just,  fair,  and  equal. 
I  did  not  consider  the  mode  of  submission  provided  in  what  is  known  as  the 
"  English  "  bill  a  fair  submission,  and  for  this  simple  reason,  among  others  :  It 
provided,  in  effect,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  would  accept  the  Lecompton 
Constitution,  that  they  might  come  in  with  35,000  inhabitants ;  but  that,  if 
they  rejected  it,  in  order  that  they  might  form  a  constitution  agreeable  to  their 
own  feelings,  and  conformable  to  their  own  principles,  that  they  should  not 
be  received  into  the  Union  until  they  had  93,420  inhabitants.  In  other  words, 
it  said  to  the  people.  If  you  will  come  into  the  Union  as  a  slaveholding  State, 
you  shall  be  admitted  with  35,000  inhabitants ;  but  if  you  insist  on  being  a 
Free  State,  you  sliall  not  be  admitted  until  you  have  93,420.  I  was  not  will- 
ing to  discriminate  between  Free  States  and  Slave  States  in  this  Confederacy.  I 
will  not  put  a  restriction  upon  a  Slave  State  that  I  would  not  put  upon  a  Free 
State,  and  I  will  not  permit,  if  I  can  prevent  it,  a  restriction  being  put  upon  a 
Free  State  which  is  not  applied  with  thesame  force  to  the  slaveholding  States. 
Equality  among  the  States  is  a  cardinal  and  fundamental  principle  in  our  Con- 
federacy, and  cannot  be  violated  without  overturning  our  system  of  government. 
Hence  I  demanded  that  the  Free  States  and  the  slaveholding  States  should  be 
kept  on  an  exact  equality,  one  with  the  other,  as  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  had  placed  them.     If  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  slaveholding 


36  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

State,  let  them  have  it ;  and  if  they  want  a  Free  State  they  have  a  right  to 
it ;  and  it  is  not  for  the  people  of  Illinois,  or  Missouri,  or  New  York,  or  Ken- 
tucky, to  complain,  whatever  the  decision  of  the  people  of  Kansas  may  be 
upon  that  point. 

But  while  I  was  not  content  with  the  mode  of  submission  contained  in  the 
English  bill,  and  while  I  could  not  sanction  it  for  the  reason  that,  in  my 
opinion,  it  violated  the  great  principle  of  equality  among  the  different  States, 
yet  when  it  became  the  law  of  the  land,  and  under  it  the  question  was  referred 
back  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for  their  decision,  at  an  election  to  be  held  on 
the  first  Monday  in  August  next,  I  bowed  in  deference,  because  whatever  deci- 
sion the  people  shall  make  at  that  election  must  be  final,  and  conclusive  of  the 
whole  question.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  accept  the  proposition  submitted 
by  Congress,  from  that  moment  Kansas  will  become  a  State  of  the  Union,  and 
there  is  no  way  of  keeping  her  out  if  you  should  try.  The  act  of  admission 
would  become  irrepealable ;  Kansas  would  be  a  State,  and  there  would  be  an 
end  of  the  controversy.  On  the  other  hand,  if  at  that  election  the  people  of 
Kansas  shall  reject  the  proposition,  as  is  now  generally  thought  will  be  the 
case,  from  that  moment  the  Lecompton  Constitution  is  dead,  and  again  there  is 
an  end  of  the  controversy.  So  you  see  that  either  way,  on  the  3d  of  August 
next,  the  Lecompton  controversy  ceases  and  terminates  forever;  and  a  similar 
question  can  never  arise  unless  some  man  shall  attempt  to  play  the  Lecompton 
game  over  again.  But,  my  fellow-citizens,  I  am  well  convinced  that  that  game 
will  never  be  attempted  again  ;  it  has  been  so  solemnly  and  thoroughly  rebuked 
during  the  last  session  of  Congress  that  it  will  find  but  few  advocates  in  the 
future.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  annual  message,  expressly 
recommends  that  the  example  of  the  Minnesota  case,  wherein  Congress  required 
the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  people  for  ratification  or 
rejection,  shall  be  followed  in  all  future  cases ;  and  all  we  have  to  do  is  to 
sustain  as  one  man  that  recommendation,  and  the  Kansas  controversy  can  never 
again  arise. 

My  friends,  I  do  not  desire  you  to  understand  me  as  claiming  for  myself 
any  special  merit  for  the  course  I  have  pursued  on  this  question.  I  simply 
did  my  duty, —  a  duty  enjoined  by  fidelity,  by  honor,  by  patriotism  ;  a  duty 
which  I  could  not  have  shrunk  from,  in  my  opinion,  without  dishonor  and 
faithlessness  to  my  constituency.  Besides,  I  only  did  what  it  was  in  the  power 
of  any  one  man  to  do.  There  were  others,  men  of  eminent  ability,  men  of 
wide  reputation,  renowned  all  over  America,  who  led  the  van,  and  are  entitled 
to  the  greatest  share  of  the  credit.  Foremost  among  them  all,  as  he  was  head 
and  shoulders  above  them  all,  was  Kentucky's  great  and  gallant  statesman, 
John  J.  Crittenden.  By  his  course  upon  this  question  he  has  shown  himself 
a  worthy  successor  of  the  immortal  Clay,  and  well  may  Kentucky  be  proud  of 
him.  I  will  not  withhold,  either,  the  meed  of  praise  due  the  Eepublican  party 
in  Congress  for  the  course  which  they  pursued.  In  the  language  of  the  "  New 
York  Tribune,"  they  came  to  the  Douglas  platform,  abandoning  their  own, 
believing  that  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  they  would  in  that  mode  best 
subserve  the  interests  of  the  country.  My  friends,  when  I  am  battling  for  a 
great  principle,  I  want  aid  and  support  from  whatever  quarter  I  can  get  it,  in 
order  to  carry  out  that  principle.  I  never  hesitate  in  my  course  when  I  find 
those  who  on  all  former  occasions  differed  from  me  upon  the  principle  finally 
coming  to  its  support.  Nor  is  it  for  me  to  inquire  into  the  motives  which 
animated  the  Republican  members  of  Congress  in  supporting  the  Crittenden- 
Montgomery  bill.     It  is  enough  for  me  that  in  that  case  they  came  square  up 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  37 

and  indorsed  the  great  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  which  declared 
that  Kansas  should  be  received  into  the  Union,  with  slavery  or  without,  as  its 
Constitution  should  prescribe.  I  was  the  more  rejoiced  at  the  action  of  the 
Eepublicans  on  that  occasion  for  another  reason.  I  could  not  forget,  you  will 
not  soon  forget,  how  unanimous  that  party  was,  in  1854,  in  declaring  that 
never  should  another  Slave  State  be  admitted  into  this  Union  under  any  cir- 
cumstances whatever ;  and  yet  we  find  that  during  this  last  winter  they  came 
up  and  voted  to  a  man,  declaring  that  Kansas  should  come  in  as  a  State  with 
slavery  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  if  her  people  desired  it,  and  that 
if  they  did  not,  that  they  might  form  a  new  Constitution,  with  slavery  or  with- 
out, just  as  they  pleased.  I  do  not  question  the  motive  when  men  do  a  good 
act ;  I  give  them  credit  for  the  act ;  and  if  they  will  stand  by  tliat  principle  in 
the  future,  and  abandon  their  heresy  of  "  no  more  Slave  States  even  if  the 
people  want  them,"  I  will  then  give  them  still  more  credit.  I  am  afraid, 
though,  that  they  will  not  stand  by  it  in  the  future.  If  they  do,  I  will  freely 
forgive  them  all  the  abuse  they  heaped  upon  me  in  1854  for  having  advocated 
and  carried  out  that  same  principle  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

Illinois  stands  proudly  forward  as  a  State  which  early  took  her  position  in 
favor  of  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  as  applied  to  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States.  When  the  Compromise  measure  of  1850  passed,  predicated 
upon  that  principle,  you  recollect  the  excitement  which  prevailed  throughout 
the  northern  portion  of  this  State.  I  vindicated  those  measures  then,  and 
defended  myself  for  having  voted  for  them,  upon  the  ground  that  they  embo- 
died the  principle  that  every  people  ought  to  have  the  privilege  of  forming  and 
rejzulatin'i-  their  own  institutions  to  suit  themselves ;  that  each  State  had  that 
right,  and  I  saw  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  extended  to  the  Territories. 
When  the  people  of  Illinois  had  an  opportunity  of  passing  judgment  upon 
those  measures,  tliey  indorsed  them  by  a  vote  of  their  representatives  in  the 
Legislature,  —  sixty-one  in  the  affirmative,  and  only  four  in  the  negative, — 
in  which  they  asserted  that  the  principle  embodied  in  the  measures  was  the 
birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  a  principle  vindicated  by  our  revolu- 
tionary fathers,  and  that  no  limitation  should  ever  be  placed  upon  it,  either 
in  the  organization  of  a  Territorial  Government  or  the  admission  of  a  State 
into  the  Union.  That  resolution  still  stands  unrepealed  on  the  journals  of  the 
Legislature  of  Illinois.  In  obedience  to  it,  and  in  exact  conformity  with  the 
principle,  I  brought  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  requiring  tliat  the  people 
should  be  left  perfectly  free  in  the  formation  of  their  institutions  and  in  the 
organization  of  their  government.  I  now  submit  to  you  whether  I  have  not 
in  good  faith  redeemed  that  pledge,  that  the  people  of  Kansas  should  be  left 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  And 
yet,  while  no  man  can  arise  in  any  crowd  and  deny  that  I  have  been  faithful 
to  my  principles  and  redeemed  my  pledge,  we  find  those  who  are  struggling 
to  crush  and  defeat  me,  for  the  very  reason  that  I  have  been  faithful  in  carry- 
ing out  those  measures.  We  find  the  Eepublican  leaders  forming  an  alliance 
with  professed  Lecompton  men  to  defeat  every  Democratic  nominee  and  elect 
Eepublicans  in  their  places,  and  aiding  and  defending  them  in  order  to  help 
them  break  down  Anti-Lecompton  men,  whom  they  acknowledge  did  right 
in  their  opposition  to  Lecompton.  The  only  hope  that  Mr.  Lincoln  has  of 
defeating  me  for  the  Senate  rests  in  the  fact  that  I  was  faithful  to  my  prin- 
ciples and  that  he  may  be  able  in  consequence  of  that  fact  to  form  a  coalition 
with  Lecompton  men  who  wish  to  defeat  me  for  that  fidelity. 

This  is  one  element  of  strength  upon  which  he  relies  to  accomplish  his 


38  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

object.  He  hopes  be  can  secure  tbe  few  nieu  clainiing  to  be  friends  of  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  and  for  that  reason  you  will  find  he  does  not  say  a 
word  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution  or  its  supporters.  He  is  as  silent  as 
the  grave  upon  that  subject.  Behold  Mr.  Lincoln  courting  Lecompton  votes, 
in  order  that  he  may  go  to  the  Senate  as  the  representative  of  Eepublican 
principles !  You  know  that  the  alliance  exists.  I  think  you  will  find  that  it 
will  ooze  out  before  the  contest  is  over. 

Every  Eepublican  paper  takes  ground  with  my  Lecompton  enemies,  en- 
couraging them,  stimulating  them  in  their  opposition  to  me.  and  styling  my 
friends  bolters  from  the  Democratic  party,  and  their  Lecompton  allies  the  true 
Democratic  party  of  the  country.  K  they  think  that  they  can  mislead  and 
deceive  the  people  of  Hlinois,  or  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  by  that  sort  of  an 
unnatural  and  unholy  alliance,  I  think  they  show  very  little  sagacity,  or  give 
the  people  very  little  credit  for  intelligence.  It  must  be  a  contest  of  principle. 
Either  the  radical  Abolition  principles  of  Mr.  Lincoln  must  be  maintained,  or 
the  strong,  constitutional,  national  Democratic  principles  with  which  I  am 
identified  must  be  carried  out. 

There  can  be  but  two  great  political  parties  in  this  country.  The  contest 
this  year  and  in  1860  must  necessarily  be  between  the  Democracy  and  the 
Eepublicans,  if  we  can  judge  from  present  indications.  My  whole  life  lias 
been  identified  with  the  Democratic  party.  I  have  devoted  all  of  my  energies 
to  advocating  its  principles  and  sustaining  its  organization.  In  this  State  the 
party  M'as  never  better  united  or  more  harmonious  than  at  this  time.  The 
State  Convention  which  assembled  on  the  2d  of  April,  and  nominated  Fondey 
and  French,  was  regularly  called  by  the  State  Central  Committee,  appointed 
by  the  previous  State  Convention  for  that  purpose.  The  meetings  in  each 
county  in  the  State  for  the  appointment  of  delegates  to  the  Convention  were 
regularly  called  by  the  county  committees,  and  the  proceedings  in  every 
county  in  the  State,  as  well  as  in  the  State  Convention,  were  regular  in  all 
respects.  No  convention  was  ever  more  harmonious  in  its  action,  or  showed 
a  more  tolerant  and  just  spirit  toward  brother  Democrats.  The  leaders  of  the 
party  there  assembled  declared  their  unalterable  attachment  to  the  time- 
honored  principles  and  organization  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  to  the  Cin- 
cinnati platform.  They  declared  that  that  platform  was  the  only  authoritative 
exposition  of  Democratic  principles,  and  that  it  must  so  stand  until  changed 
by  another  National  Convention ;  that  in  the  mean  time  they  would  make  no 
new  tests,  and  submit  to  none  ;  tliat  they  would  proscribe  no  Democrat  or 
permit  the  proscription  of  Democrats  because  of  their  opinion  upon  Lecomp- 
tonism,  or  upon  any  other  issue  which  has  arisen,  but  would  recognize  all  men 
as  Democrats  who  remained  inside  of  the  organization,  preserved  the  usages  of 
the  party,  and  supported  its  nominees.  These  bolting  Democrats  who  now 
claim  to  be  the  peculiar  friends  of  the  National  Administration,  and  have 
formed  an  alliance  with  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Eepublicans  for  the  purpose  of 
defeating  the  Democratic  party,  have  ceased  to  claim  fellowship  with  the 
Democratic  organization,  have  entirely  separated  themselves  from  it,  and  are 
endeavoring  to  build  up  a  faction  in  the  State,  not  with  the  hope  or  expecta- 
tion of  electing  any  one  man  who  professes  to  be  a  Democrat  to  office  in  any 
county  in  the  State,  but  merely  to  secure  the  defeat  of  the  Democratic  nomi- 
nees and  the  election  of  Eepublicans  in  their  places.  What  excuse  can  any 
honest  Democrat  have  for  abandoning  the  Democratic  organization  and  join- 
ing with  the  Eepublicans  to  defeat  our  nominees,  in  view  of  the  platform 
established  by  the  State  Convention  ?     They  cannot  pretend  that  they  were 


AND  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  39 

proscribed  because  of  their  opinions  upon  Lecompton  or  any  other  question, 
for  the  Convention  expressly  declared  that  they  recognized  all  as  good  Demo- 
crats who  remained  inside  of  the  organization  and  abided  by  the  nominations. 
If  the  question  is  settled  or  is  to  be  considered  as  finally  disposed  of  by  the 
vote  on  the  3d  of  August,  what  possible  excuse  can  any  good  Democrat  make 
for  keeping  up  a  division  for  the  purpose  of  prostrating  his  party,  after  that 
election  is  over  and  the  controversy  has  terminated  ?  It  is  evident  that  all 
who  shall  keep  up  this  warfare  for  tlie  purpose  of  dividing  and  destroying  the 
party  have  made  up  their  minds  to  abandon  the  Democratic  organization  for- 
ever, and  to  join  those  for  whose  benefit  they  are  now  trying  to  distract  our 
party,  and  elect  Republicans  in  the  place  of  the  Democratic  nominees. 

I  submit  the  question  to  you  whether  I  have  been  right  or  wrong  in  the 
course  I  have  pursued  in  Congress.  And  I  submit,  also,  whether  I  have  not 
redeemed  in  good  faitli  every  pledge  I  have  made  to  you.  Then,  my  friends, 
the  question  recurs,  whether  I  shall  be  sustained  or  rejected  ?  If  you  are  of 
opinion  that  Mr.  Lincoln  will  advance  tlie  interests  of  Illinois  better  than  I 
can ;  that  he  will  sustain  lier  honor  and  her  dignity  higher  than  it  has  been 
in  my  power  to  do ;  that  your  interests  and  the  interests  of  your  children 
require  his  election  instead  of  mine,  it  is  your  duty  to  give  him  your  support. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  you  think  that  my  adherence  to  these  great  fundamental 
principles  upon  which  our  government  is  founded  is  the  true  mode  of  sustain- 
ing the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country,  and  maintaining  the  jierpetuity  of 
the  Eepublic,  I  then  ask  you  to  stand  by  me  in  the  efforts  I  have  made  to 
that  end. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  the  two  points  at  issue  between 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself.  The  Republican  Convention,  when  it  assembled  at 
Springfield,  did  me  and  the  country  the  honor  of  indicating  the  man  who  was 
to  be  their  standard-bearer,  and  the  embodiment  of  their  principles,  in  this 
State.  I  owe  them  my  gratitude  for  thus  making  up  a  direct  issue  between 
IVIr.  Lincoln  and  myself.  I  shall  have  no  controversies  of  a  personal  character 
with  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  have  known  him  well  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  I  have 
known  him,  as  you  all  know  him,  a  kind-hearted,  amiable  gentleman,  a  right 
good  fellow,  a  worthy  citizen,  of  eminent  ability  as  a  lawyer,  and,  I  have  no 
doubt,  sufficient  ability  to  make  a  good  Senator.  The  question,  tlien,  for  you 
to  decide  is,  whether  his  principles  are  more  in  accordance  with  the  genius  of 
our  free  institutions,  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Republic,  than  those  which 
I  advocate.  He  tells  you,  in  his  speech  made  at  Springfield,  before  the  Con- 
vention which  gave  him  his  unanimous  nomination,  that,  — 

"  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand." 

"  I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half 
free." 

"  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved,  I  don't  expect  the  house  to  fall ; 
but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided." 

"It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 

That  is  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which  he  sets  out  in  this  campaign. 
Well,  I  do  not  suppose  you  will  believe  one  word  of  it  when  you  come  to 
examine  it  carefully,  and  see  its  consequences.  Althougli  the  Republic  has 
existed  from  1789  to  this  day,  divided  into  Free  States  and  Slave  States,  yet 
we  are  told  that  in  the  future  it  cannot  endure  unless  they  shall  become  all 
free  or  all  slave.  For  that  reason  he  says,  as  the  gentleman  in  the  crowd 
says,  that  they  must  be  all  free.  He  wishes  to  go  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  in  order  to  carry  out  that  line  of  public  policy,  which  will  compel  all 


40  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

the  States  in  the  South  to  become  free.  How  is  he  going  to  do  it  ?  Has 
Congress  any  power  over  the  subject  of  slavery  in  Kentucky,  or  Virginia,  or 
any  other  State  of  this  Union  ?  How,  then,  is  Mr.  Lincoln  going  to  carry  out 
that  principle  which  he  says  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  this  Union,  to  wit: 
That  slavery  must  be  abolished  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union,  or  must  be 
established  in  them  all  ?  You  convince  the  South  that  they  must  either 
establish  slavery  in  Illinois,  and  in  every  other  Free  State,  or  submit  to  its 
abolition  in  every  Southern  State,  and  you  invite  them  to  make  a  warfare  upon 
the  Northern  States  in  order  to  establish  slavery,  for  the  sake  of  perpetuating 
it  at  home.  Thus,  Mr.  Lincoln  invites,  by  his  proposition,  a  war  of  sections,  a 
war  between  Illinois  and  Kentucky,  a  war  between  the  Free  States  and  the 
Slave  States,  a  war  between  the  North  and  the  South,  for  the  purpose  of  either 
exterminating  slavery  in  every  Southern  State,  or  planting  it  in  every  Northern 
State.  He  tells  you  that  the  safety  of  this  Republic,  that  the  existence  of  this 
Union,  depends  upon  that  warfare  being  carried  on  until  one  section  or  the 
other  shall  be  entirely  subdued.  The  States  must  all  be  free  or  slave,  for  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  That  is  Mr.  Lincoln's  argument 
upon  that  question.  My  friends,  is  it  possible  to  preserve  peace  between  the 
North  and  the  South  if  such  a  doctrine  shall  prevail  in  either  section  of  the 
ITnion  ?  Will  you  ever  submit  to  a  warfare  waged  by  the  Southern  States  to 
establish  slavery  in  Illinois  ?  What  man  in  Illinois  would  not  lose  the  last 
drop  of  his  heart's  blood  before  he  would  submit  to  the  institution  of  slavery 
being  forced  upon  us  by  the  other  States,  against  our  will  ?  And  if  that  be 
true  of  us,  what  Southern  man  would  not  shed  the  last  drop  of  his  lieart's 
blood  to  prevent  Illinois,  or  any  other  Northern  State,  from  interfering  to  abolish 
slavery  in  his  State  ?  Each  of  these  States  is  sovereign  under  the  Constitu- 
tion ;  and  if  we  wish  to  preserve  our  liberties,  the  reserved  rights  and  sove- 
reignty of  each  and  every  State  must  be  maintained.  I  have  said  on  a  former 
occasion,  and  I  here  repeat,  that  it  is  neither  desirable  nor  possible  to  establish 
uniformity  in  the  local  and  domestic  institutions  of  all  the  States  of  this  Con- 
federacy. And  why  ?  Because  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  rests  upon 
the  right  of  every  State  to  decide  all  its  local  and  domestic  institutions  for 
itself.  It  is  not  possible,  therefore,  to  make  them  conform  to  each  other,  unless 
we  subvert  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  No,  sir,  that  cannot  be 
done.  God  forbid  that  any  man  should  ever  make  the  attempt.  Let  that 
Constitution  ever  be  trodden  under  foot  and  destroyed,  and  there  will  not  be 
wisdom  and  patriotism  enough  left  to  make  another  that  will  work  half  so  well. 
Our  safety,  our  liberty,  depends  upon  preserving  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  as  our  fathers  made  it,  inviolate,  at  the  same  time  maintaining  the 
reserved  rights  and  the  sovereignty  of  each  State  over  its  local  and  domestic 
institutions,  against  Federal  authority,  or  any  outside  interference. 

The  difference  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  upon  this  point  is,  that  he 
goes  for  a  combination  of  the  Northern  States,  or  the  organization  of  a  sectional 
political  party  in  the  Free  States,  to  make  war  on  the  domestic  institutions  of 
the  Southern  States,  and  to  prosecute  that  war  until  they  shall  all  be  subdued, 
and  made  to  conform  to  such  rules  as  the  North  shall  dictate  to  them.  I  am 
aware  that  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  Saturday  night  last,  made  a  speech  at  Chicago  for 
the  purpose,  as  he  said,  of  explaining  his  position  on  this  question.  I  have 
read  that  speech  with  great  care,  and  will  do  him  the  justice  to  say  that  it  is 
marked  by  eminent  ability,  and  great  success  in  concealing  what  he  did  mean 
to  say  in  his  Springfield  speech.  His  answer  to  this  point,  which  I  have  been 
arguing,  is,  that  he  never  did  mean,  and  that  I  ought  to  know  that  he  never 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  41 

intended  to  convey  the  idea,  that  he  wished  the  "  people  of  the  Free  States  to 
enter  into  the  Southern  States  and  interfere  with  slavery."  Well,  I  never  did 
suppose  that  he  ever  dreamed  of  entering  into  Kentucky  to  make  war  upon 
her  institutions ;  nor  will  any  Abolitionist  ever  enter  into  Kentucky  to  wage 
such  war.  Their  mode  of  makino-  war  is  not  to  enter  into  those  States  where 
slavery  exists,  and  there  interfere,  and  render  themselves  responsible  for  the 
consequences.  Oh,  no !  They  stand  on  this  side  of  the  Ohio  Eiver  and  shoot 
across.  They  stand  in  Bloomington,  and  shake  their  fists  at  the  people  of 
Lexington;  they  threaten  South  Carolina  from  Chicago.  And  they  call  that 
bravery !  But  they  are  very  particular,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  says,  not  to  enter  into 
those  States  for  the  purpose  of  interfering  with  the  institution  of  slavery  there. 
I  am  not  only  opposed  to  entering  into  the  Slave  States,  for  the  purpose  of 
interfering  with  their  institutions,  hut  I  am  opposed  to  a  sectional  agitation  to 
control  the  institutions  of  other  States.  I  am  opposed  to  organizing  a  sectional 
party,  which  appeals  to  Northern  pride,  and  Northern  passion  and  prejudice, 
against  Southern  institutions,  thus  stirring  up  ill-feeling  and  hot  blood  between 
brethren  of  the  same  Eepublic.  I  am  opposed  to  that  whole  system  of  sec- 
tional agitation,  which  can  produce  nothing  but  strife,  but  discord,  but  hostility, 
and,  finally,  disunion.  And  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  asks  you  to  send  him  to  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  he  may  carry  out  that  great  principle  of 
his,  that  all  the  States  must  be  slave,  or  all  must  be  free.  I  repeat,  how  is  he 
to  carry  it  out  when  he  gets  to  the  Senate  ?  Does  he  intend  to  introduce  a  bill 
to  abolish  slavery  in  Kentucky  ?  Does  he  intend  to  introduce  a  bill  to  inter- 
fere with  slavery  in  Virginia  ?  How  is  he  to  accomplish  what  he  professes 
must  be  done  in  order  to  save  the  Union  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  lawyer,  sagacious 
and  able  enough  to  tell  you  how  he  proposes  to  do  it.  I  ask  Mr.  Lincoln  how 
it  is  that  he  proposes  ultimately  to  bring  about  this  uniformity  in  each  and  all 
the  States  of  the  Union.  There  is  but  one  possible  mode  which  I  can  see,  and 
perhaps  Mr.  Lincoln  intends  to  pursue  it ;  that  is,  to  introduce  a  proposition 
into  the  Senate  to  change  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  all 
the  State  Legislatures  may  be  abolished.  State  sovereignty  blotted  out,  and  the 
power  conferred  upon  Congress  to  make  local  laws  and  establish  the  domestic 
institutions  and  police  regulations  uniformly  throughout  the  United  States. 
Are  you  prepared  for  such  a  change  in  the  institutions  of  your  country  ? 
Whenever  you  shall  have  blotted  out  the  State  sovereignties,  abolished  the 
State  Legislatures,  and  consolidated  all  the  power  in  the  Federal  Government, 
you  will  have  established  a  consolidated  Empire  as  destructive  to  the  liberties 
of  the  people  and  the  rights  of  the  citizen  as  that  of  Austria,  or  Russia,  or  any 
other  despotism  that  rests  upon  the  necks  of  the  people.  How  is  it  possible 
for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  carry  out  his  cherished  principle  of  abolishing  slavery  every- 
where or  establishing  it  everywhere,  except  by  the  mode  which  I  have  pointed 
out, —  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  to  the  effect  that  I  have  suggested  ? 
There  is  no  other  possible  mode.  Mr.  Lincoln  intends  resorting  to  that,  or  else 
he  means  nothing  by  the  great  principle  upon  which  he  desires  to  be  elected. 
My  friends,  I  trust  that  we  will  be  able  to  get  him  to  define  what  he  does 
mean  by  this  scriptural  quotation  that  "  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand  ; "  that  the  government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half 
free  ;  that  it  must  be  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Who  among  you  expects 
to  live,  or  have  his  children  live,  until  slavery  shall  be  established  in  Illinois 
or  abolished  in  South  Carolina  ?  Who  expects  to  see  that  occur  during  the  life- 
time of  ourselves  or  our  children  ? 

There  is  but  one  possible  way  in  which  slavery  can  be  abolished,  and  that 

6 


42  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

is  by  leaving  a  State,  according  to  the  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  its  institutions  in  its  own  way.  That  w^as 
the  principle  upon  which  this  Republic  was  founded,  and  it  is  under  the 
operation  of  that  principle  that  we  have  been  able  to  preserve  the  Union  thus 
far.  Under  its  operations,  slavery  disappeared  from  New  Hampshire,  from 
Rhode  Island,  from  Connecticut,  from  New  York,  from  New  Jersey,  from 
Pennsylvania,  from  six  of  the  twelve  original  slaveholding  States  ;  and  this 
gradual  system  of  emancipation  went  on  quietly,  peacefully,  and  steadily,  so 
Ion"  as  we  in  the  Free  States  minded  our  own  business  and  left  our  neighbors 
alone.  But  the  moment  the  Abolition  societies  were  organized  throuoliout 
the  North,  preaching  a  violent  crusade  against  slavery  in  the  Southern  States, 
this  combination  necessarily  caused  a  counter-combination  in  the  South,  and 
a  sectional  line  was  drawn  which  was  a  barrier  to  any  further  emancipation. 
Bear  in  mind  that  emancipation  has  not  taken  place  in  any  one  State  since 
the  Free-soil  party  was  organized  as  a  political  party  in  this  country.  Eman- 
cipation went  on  gradually  in  State  after  State  so  long  as  the  Free  States  were 
content  with  managing  their  own  affairs  and  leaving  the  South  perfectly  free 
to  do  as  they  pleased ;  but  the  moment  the  North  said.  We  are  powerful 
enough  to  control  you  of  the  South,  the  moment  the  North  proclaimed  itself 
the  determined  master  of  the  South,  that  moment  the  South  combined  to 
resist  the  attack,  and  thus  sectional  parties  were  formed,  and  gradual  emanci- 
pation ceased  in  all  the  Northern  slaveholding  States.  And  yet  Mr.  Lincoln, 
in  view  of  these  historical  facts,  proposes  to  keep  up  this  sectional  agitation, 
band  all  the  Northern  States  together  in  one  political  party,  elect  a  President 
by  Northern  votes  alone,  and  then,  of  course,  make  a  cabinet  composed  of 
Northern  men,  and  administer  the  government  by  Northern  men  only,  deny- 
ing all  the  Southern  States  of  this  Union  any  participation  in  the  administra- 
tion of  affairs  whatsoever.  I  submit  to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  whether  such 
a  line  of  policy  is  consistent  with  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country  ? 
Can  the  Union  endure  under  such  a  system  of  policy  ?  He  has  taken  his 
position  in  favor  of  sectional  agitation  and  sectional  warfare.  I  have  taken 
mine  in  favor  of  securing  peace,  harmony,  and  good-will  among  all  the  States, 
by  permitting  each  to  mind  its  own  business,  and  discountenancing  any 
attempt  at  interference  on  the  part  of  one  State  with  the  domestic  concerns 
of  the  others. 

Mr.  Lincoln  makes  another  issue  with  me,  and  he  wishes  to  confine  the 
contest  to  these  two  issues.  I  accept  the  other  as  readily  as  the  one  to  which 
I  have  already  referred.  The  other  issue  is  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  because  of  its  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 
My  fellow-citizens,  I  have  no  issue  to  make  wath  the  Supreme  Court.  I  have 
no  crusade  to  preach  against  that  august  body.  I  have  no  warfare  to  make 
upon  it.  I  receive  the  decision  of  the  Judges  of  that  Court,  when  pronounced, 
as  the  final  adjudication  upon  all  questions  within  their  jurisdiction.  It  would 
be  perfectly  legitimate  and  proper  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  myself,  or  any  other  law- 
yer, to  go  before  the  Supreme  Court  and  argue  any  question  that  might  arise 
there,  taking  either  side  of  it,  and  enforcing  it  with  all  our  ability,  zeal,  and 
energy ;  but  when  the  decision  is  pronounced,  that  decision  becomes  the  law 
of  the  land,  and  he,  and  you,  and  myself,  and  every  other  good  citizen,  must 
bow  to  it,  and  yield  obedience  to  it.  Unless  w^e  respect  and  bow  in  deference 
to  the  final  decisions  of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  in  our  country,  we  are 
driven  at  once  to  anarchy,  to  violence,  to  mob  law,  and  there  is  no  security 
left  for  our  property  or  our  own  civil  rights.     What  protects  your  property 


AND    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  '  43 

but  the  law,  and  who  expounds  the  law  but  the  judicial  tribunals  ;  and  if  an 
appeal  is  to  be  taken  from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  in  all  cases  where  a  person  does  not  like  the  adjudication,  to  whom  is 
that  appeal  to  be  taken  ?  Are  we  to  appeal  from  the  Supreme  Court  to  a 
county-meeting  like  this  ?  And  shall  we  here  re-argue  the  question  and  re- 
verse the  decision  ?  If  so,  how  are  we  to  enforce  our  decrees  after  we  have 
pronounced  them  ?  Does  Mr.  Lincoln  intend  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  to  a  Republican  caucus,  or  a  town  meeting  ?  To  whom  is 
he  going  to  appeal?  ["To  Lovejoy,"  and  shouts  of  laughter.]  Why,  if  I 
understand  aright,  Lincoln  and  Lovejoy  are  co-appellants  in  a  joint  suit,  and 
inasmuch  as  they  are  so,  he  would  not  certainly  appeal  from  the  Supreme 
Court  to  his  own  partner  to  decide  the  case  for  him. 

Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  that  he  is  opposed  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  Well,  suppose  he  is ;  what  is  he  going  to  do 
about  it  ?  I  never  got  beat  in  a  law  suit  in  my  life  that  I  was  not  opposed  to 
the  decision ;  and  if  I  had  it  before  the  Circuit  Court  I  took  it  up  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  where,  if  I  got  beat  again,  I  thought  it  better  to  say  no  more 
about  it,  as  I  did  not  know  of  any  lawful  mode  of  reversing  the  decision  of 
the  highest  tribunal  on  earth.  To  whom  is  Mr.  Lincoln  going  to  appeal  ? 
Why,  he  says  he  is  going  to  appeal  to  Congress.  Let  us  see  how  he  will 
appeal  to  Congress.  He  tells  us  that  on  the  8th  of  March,  1820,  Congress 
passed  a  law  called  the  Missouri  Compromise,  prohibiting  slavery  forever  in 
all  the  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi  and  north  of  the  Missouri  line  of 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes,  that  Dred  Scott,  a  slave  in  Missouri, 
was  taken  by  his  master  to  Fort  Snelling,  in  the  present  State  of  Minnesota, 
situated  on  the  west  branch  of  the  Mississippi  Eiver,  and  consequently  in  the 
Territory  where  slavery  was  prohibited  by  the  Act  of  1820,  and  that  wlien 
Dred  Scott  appealed  for  his  freedom  in  consequence  of  having  been  taken  into 
a  free  Territory,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  decided  that  Dred 
Scott  did  not  become  free  by  being  taken  into  that  Territory,  but  that  having 
been  carried  back  to  Missouri,  was  yet  a  slave.  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to 
appeal  from  that  decision  and  reverse  it.  He  does  not  intend  to  reverse  it  as 
to  Dred  Scott.  Oh,  no  !  But  he  will  reverse  it  so  that  it  shall  not  stand  as 
a  rule  in  the  future.  How  will  he  do  it  ?  He  says  that  if  he  is  elected  to 
the  Senate,  he  will  introduce  and  pass  a  law  just  like  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, prohibiting  slavery  again  in  all  the  Territories.  Suppose,  he  does 
re-enact  the  same  law  which  the  Court  has  pronounced  unconstitutional,  will 
that  make  it  constitutional  ?  If  the  Act  of  1820  was  unconstitutional  in  con- 
sequence of  Congress  having  no  power  to  pass  it,  will  Mr.  Lincoln  make  it 
constitutional  by  passing  it  again  ?  What  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  provides  for  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
to  Congress  ?  If  my  reading  of  that  instrument  is  correct,  it  is  to  the  effect 
that  that  Constitution  and  all  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it  are  of  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  a  State  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  Hence,  you  will  find  that  only  such  Acts  of  Congress  are 
laws  as  are  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution.  When  Congress  has 
passed  an  Act,  and  put  it  on  the  statute  book  as  law,  who  is  to  decide  whether 
that  Act  is  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  or  not  ?  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  tells  you.  It  has  provided  that  the  judicial  power  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  vested  in  a  Supreme  Court,  and  such  inferior  Courts  as 
Congress  may  from  time  to  time  ordain  and  establish.  Thus,  by  the  Consti- 
tution, the  Supreme  Court  is  declared,  in  so  many  words,  to  be  the  tribunal, 


44  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

and  the  only  tribunal,  which  is  competent  to  adjudicate  upon  the  constitution- 
ality of  an  Act  of  Congress.  He  tells  you  that  that  Court  has  adjudicated  the 
question,  and  decided  that  an  Act  of  Congress  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritory is  unconstitutional  and  void  ;  and  yet  he  says  he  is  going  to  pass 
another  like  it.  What  for  ?  Will  it  be  any  more  valid  ?  Will  he  be  able  to 
convince  the  Court  that  the  second  Act  is  valid  when  the  first  is  invalid  and 
void  ?  What  good  does  it  do  to  pass  a  second  Act  ?  Why,  it  will  have  the 
effect  to  arraign  the  Su])reme  Court  before  the  people,  and  to  bring  them  into 
all  the  political  discussions  of  the  country.  Will  that  do  any  good  ?  Will  it 
inspire  any  more  confidence  in  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  country  ?  What 
good  can  it  do  to  wage  this  war  upon  the  Court,  arraying  it  against  Congress, 
and  Congress  against  the  Court  ?  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
said  that  this  government  shall  be  divided  into  three  separate  and  distinct 
branches,  —  the  executive,  the  legislative,  and  the  judicial ;  and  of  course  each 
one  is  supreme  and  independent  of  the  other  within  the  circle  of  its  own 
powers.  The  functions  of  Congress  are  to  enact  the  statutes,  the  province  of 
the  Court  is  to  pronounce  upon  their  validity,  and  the  duty  of  the  Executive 
is  to  carry  the  decision  into  effect  when  rendered  by  the  Court.  And  yet, 
notwithstanding  the  Constitution  makes  the  decision  of  the  Court  final  in 
regard  to  the  validity  of  an  Act  of  Congress,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  reverse 
that  decision  by  passing  another  Act  of  Congress. 

When  he  has  become  convinced  of  the  folly  of  the  proposition,  perhaps  he 
will  resort  to  the  same  subterfuge  that  I  have  found  others  of  his  party  resort 
to,  which  is  to  agitate  and  agitate  until  he  can  change  the  Supreme  Court  and 
put  other  men  in  the  places  of  the  present  incumbents.  I  wonder  whether 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  right  sure  that  he  can  accomplish  that  reform.  He  certainly 
will  not  be  able  to  get  rid  of  the  present  Judges  until  they  die,  and  from  pres- 
ent appearances  I  think  they  have  as  good  security  of  life  as  he  has  himself. 
I  am  afraid  that  my  friend  Lincoln  would  not  accomplish  this  task  during  his 
own  lifetime,  and  yet  he  wants  to  go  to  Congress  to  do  it  all  in  six  years. 
Do  you  think  that  he  can  persuade  nine  Judges,  or  a  majority  of  them,  to  die 
in  that  six  years,  just  to  accommodate  him  ?  They  are  appointed  Judges  for 
life,  and  according  to  the  present  organization,  new  ones  cannot  be  appointed 
during  that  time ;  but  he  is  going  to  agitate  until  they  die,  and  then  have  the 
President  appoint  good  Eepublicans  in  their  places.  He  had  better  be  quite 
sure  that  he  gets  a  Republican  President  at  the  same  time  to  appoint  them. 
He  wants  to  have  a  Republican  President  elected  by  Northern  votes,  not  a 
Southern  man  participating,  and  elected  for  the  purpose  of  placing  none  but 
Republicans  on  the  bench ;  and,  consequently,  if  he  succeeds  in  electing  that 
President,  and  succeeds  in  persuading  the  present  Judges  to  die,  in  order  that 
their  vacancies  may  be  filled,  that  the  President  will  then  appoint  their  suc- 
cessors. And  by  what  process  will  he  appoint  them  ?  He  first  looks  for  a 
man  who  has  the  legal  qualifications,  perhaps  he  takes  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  says, 
"  Mr.  Lincoln,  would  you  not  like  to  go  on  the  Supreme  bench  ? "  "  Yes," 
replies  Mr.  Lincoln.  "  Well,"  returns  the  Republican  President,  "  I  cannot 
appoint  you  until  you  give  me  a  pledge  as  to  how  you  will  decide  in  the  event 
of  a  particular  question  coming  before  you."  What  would  you  think  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  if  he  would  consent  to  give  that  pledge  ?  And  yet  he  is  going  to 
prosecute  a  war  until  he  gets  the  present  Judges  out,  and  then  catechise 
each  man  and  require  a  pledge  before  his  appointment  as  to  how  he  will 
decide  each  question  that  may  arise  upon  points  affecting  the  Republican 
party. 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  45 

Now,  my  friends,  suppose  this  scheme  was  practical,  I  ask  you  what  con- 
fidence you  would  have  in  a  Court  thus  constituted,  —  a  Court  composed  of 
partisan  Judges,  appointed  on  political  grounds,  selected  with  a  view  to  the 
decision  of  questions  in  a  particular  way,  and  pledged  in  regard  to  a  decision 
before  the  argument,  and  witliout  reference  to  the  peculiar  state  of  the  facts. 
Would  such  a  Court  command  the  respect  of  the  country  ?  If  the  Eepub- 
licau  party  cannot  trust  Democratic  Judges,  how  can  they  expect  us  to  trust 
Eepublican  Judges,  when  they  have  been  selected  in  advance  for  the  purpose 
of  packing  a  decision  in  the  event  of  a  case  arising  ?  My  fellow-citizens, 
whenever  partisan  politics  shall  be  carried  on  to  the  bench;  whenever  the  Judges 
shall  be  arraigned  upon  the  stump,  and  their  judicial  conduct  reviewed  in  town 
meetings  and  caucuses ;  whenever  the  independence  and  integrity  of  the  judi- 
ciary shall  be  tampered  with  to  the  extent  of  rendering  them  partial,  blind, 
and  suppliant  tools,  what  security  will  you  have  for  your  rights  and  your 
liberties  ?  I  therefore  take  issue  with  Mr.  Lincoln  directly  in  regard  to  this 
warfare  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  I  accept  the  decision 
of  that  Court  as  it  was  pronounced.  Whatever  my  individual  opinions  may 
be,  I,  as  a  good  citizen,  am  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  as  the  Legislature 
makes  them,  as  the  Court  expounds  them,  and  as  the  executive  officers  admin- 
ister them.  I  am  bound  by  our  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  as 
it  is  our  duty  to  support  it.  I  am  bound,  as  a  good  citizen,  to  sustain  the 
constituted  authorities,  and  to  resist,  discourage,  and  beat  down,  by  all  lawful 
and  peaceful  means,  all  attempts  at  exciting  mobs,  or  violence,  or  any  other 
revolutionary  proceedings  against  the  Constitution  and  the  constituted  author- 
ities of  the  country. 

Mr.  Lincoln  is  alarmed  for  fear  that,  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  slavery 
will  go  into  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  All  I  have  to  say  is  that, 
with  or  without  that  decision,  slavery  will  go  just  where  the  people  want  it, 
and  not  one  inch  further.  You  have  had  experience  upon  that  subject  in  the 
case  of  Kansas.  You  have  been  told  by  the  Eepublican  party  that,  from  1854, 
when  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed,  down  to  last  winter,  that  slavery  was 
sustained  and  supported  in  Kansas  by  the  laws  of  what  they  called  a  "  bogus  " 
Legislature.  And  how  many  slaves  were  there  in  the  Territory  at  the  end  of 
last  winter  ?  Not  as  many  at  the  end  of  that  period  as  there  were  on  the  day 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed.  There  was  quite  a  number  of  slaves  iu 
Kansas,  taken  there  under  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  in  spite  of  it,  before 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed  ;  and  now  it  is  asserted  that  there  are  not  as 
many  there  as  there  were  before  the  passage  of  the  bill,  notwithstanding  that 
they  had  local  laws  sustaining  and  encouraging  it,  enacted,  as  the  Eepublicans 
say,  by  a  "  bogus "  Legislature,  imposed  upon  Kansas  by  an  invasion  from 
Missouri.  Why  has  not  slavery  obtained  a  foothold  in  Kansas  under  these 
circumstances  ?  Simply  because  there  was  a  majority  of  her  people  opposed 
to  slavery,  and  every  slaveholder  knew  that  if  he  took  his  slaves  there,  the 
moment  that  majority  got  possession  of  the  ballot-boxes,  and  a  fair  election 
was  held,  that  moment  slavery  would  be  abolished,  and  he  would  lose  them. 
For  that  reason,  such  owners  as  took  their  slaves  there,  brought  them  back  to 
Missouri,  fearing  that  if  they  remained  they  would  be  emancipated.  Thus  you 
see  that  under  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  slavery  has  been  kept  out 
of  Kansas,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  for  the  first  three  years  they  had  a 
Legislature  in  that  Territory  favorable  to  it.  I  tell  you,  my  friends,  it  is  im- 
possible under  our  institutions  to  force  slavery  on  an  unwilling  people.  If  this 
principle  of  popular  sovereignty  asserted  in  the  Nebraska  bill  be  fairly  carried 


46  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

out,  by  letting  the  people  decide  the  question  for  themselves,  by  a  fair  vote,  at 
a  fair  election,  and  with  honest  returns,  slavery  will  never  exist  one  day,  or  one 
hour,  in  any  Territory  against  the  unfriendly  legislation  of  an  unfriendly  people. 
I  care  not  how  the  Dred  Scott  decision  may  have  settled  the  abstract  cj^uestion 
so  far  as  the  practical  result  is  concerned ;  for,  to  use  the  language  of  an  eminent 
Southern  Senator  on  this  very  question  :  — 

"  I  do  not  care  a  fig  which  way  the  decision  shall  be,  for  it  is  of  no  particular 
consequence ;  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour,  in  any  Territory  or  State, 
unless  it  has  affirmative  laws  sustaining  and  supporting  it,  furnishing  police  regula- 
tions and  remedies  ;  and  an  omission  to  furnish  them  would  be  as  fatal  as  a  con- 
stitutional prohibition.  Without  affirmative  legislation  in  its  favor,  slavery  could 
not  exist  any  longer  than  a  new-born  infant  could  survive  under  the  heat  of  the 
sun,  on  a  barren  rock,  without  protection.  It  would  wilt  and  die  for  the  want  of 
support." 

Hence,  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery,  they  will  encourage  it  by 
passing  affirmatory  laws,  and  the  necessary  police  regulations,  patrol  laws, 
and  slave  code ;  if  they  do  not  want  it,  they  will  withhold  that  legislation, 
and  by  withholding  it  slavery  is  as  dead  as  if  it  was  prohibited  by  a  constitu- 
tional prohibition,  especially  if,  in  addition,  their  legislation  is  unfriendly,  as 
it  would  be  if  they  were  opposed  to  it.  They  could  pass  such  local  laws  and 
police  regulations  as  would  drive  slavery  out  in  one  day,  or  one  hour,  if  they 
were  opposed  to  it ;  and  therefore,  so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories  is  concerned,  so  far  as  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  is  con- 
cerned, in  its  practical  operation,  it  matters  not  how  the  Dred  Scott  case  may 
be  decided  with  reference  to  the  Territories.  My  own  opinion  on  that  law 
point  is  well  known.  It  is  shown  by  my  votes  and  speeches  in  Congress. 
But  be  it  as  it  may,  the  question  was  an  abstract  question,  inviting  no  prac- 
tical results ;  and  whether  slavery  shall  exist  or  shall  not  exist  in  any  State 
or  Territory  will  depend  upon  whether  the  people  are  for  or  against  it ;  and 
whichever  way  they  shall  decide  it  in  any  Territory  or  in  any  State,  will  be 
entirely  satisfactory  to  me. 

But  I  must  now  bestow  a  few  words  upon  Mr.  Lincoln's  main  objection  to 
the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  is  not  going  to  submit  to  it.  Not  that  he  is 
going  to  make  war  upon  it  with  force  of  arms.  But  he  is  going  to  appeal  and 
reverse  it  in  some  way ;  he  cannot  tell  us  how.  I  reckon  not  by  a  writ  of 
error,  because  I  do  not  know  where  he  would  prosecute  that,  except  before  an 
Abolition  Society.  And  when  he  appeals,  he  does  not  exactly  tell  us  to  whom 
he  will  appeal,  except  it  be  the  Eepublicau  party  ;  and  I  have  yet  to  learn 
that  the  EepulDlican  party,  under  the  Constitution,  has  judicial  powers :  but 
he  is  going  to  appeal  from  it  and  reverse  it,  either  by  an  Act  of  Congress,  or 
by  turning  out  the  judges,  or  in  some  other  way.  And  why  ?  Because  he 
says  that  that  decision  deprives  the  negro  of  the  benefits  of  that  clause  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  entitles  the  citizens  of  each  State  to 
all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several  States.  Well,  it  is 
very  true  that  the  decision  does  have  that  effect.  By  deciding  that  a  negro 
is  not  a  citizen,  of  course  it  denies  to  him  the  rights  and  privileges  awarded  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  It  is  this  that  Mr.  Lincoln  will  not  submit  to. 
Why  ?  For  the  palpable  reason  that  he  wishes  to  confer  upon  the  negro  all 
the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several  States.  I  will 
not  quarrel  with  Mr.  Lincoln  for  his  views  on  that  subject.  I  have  no  doubt 
he  is  conscientious  in  them.     I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  but  that  he  con- 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  47 

scientious]y  believes  that  a  negro  ought  to  enjoy  and  exercise  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  given  to  white  men ;  but  I  do  not  agree  witli  him,  and  hence  I 
cannot  concur  with  him.  I  believe  that  this  Government  of  ours  was  founded 
on  the  white  basis.  I  believe  that  it  was  established  by  white  men,  by  men 
of  European  birth,  or  descended  of  European  races,  for  the  benefit  of  white 
men  and  their  posterity  in  all  time  to  come.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  was  the 
design  or  intention  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  or  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  to  include  negroes,  Indians,  or  other  inferior  races, 
with  white  men,  as  citizens.  Our  fathers  had  at  that  day  seen  the  evil  con- 
sequences of  conferring  civil  and  political  rights  upon  the  Indian  and  negro  in 
the  Spanish  and  French  colonies  on  the  American  continent  and  the  adjacent 
islands.  In  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  America  and  in  the  West 
India  Islands,  where  the  Indian,  the  negro,  and  men  of  all  colors  and  all  races 
are  put  on  an  equality  by  law,  the  effect  of  political  amalgamation  can  be 
seen.  Ask  any  of  those  gallant  young  men  in  your  own  county,  who  went 
to  Mexico  to  fight  the  battles  of  their  country,  in  what  friend  Lincoln  con- 
siders an  unjust  and  unholy  war,  and  hear  what  they  will  tell  you  in  regard 
to  the  amalgamation  of  races  in  that  country.  Amalgamation  there,  first 
political,  then  social,  has  led  to  demoralization  and  degradation,  until  it  has 
reduced  that  people  below  the  point  of  capacity  for  self-government.  Our 
fathers  knew  what  the  effect  of  it  would  be,  and  from  the  time  they  planted 
foot  on  the  American  continent,  not  only  those  who  landed  at  Jamestown,  but 
at  Plymouth  Eock  and  all  other  points  on  the  coast,  they  pursued  the  policy 
of  confining  civil  and  political  rights  to  the  white  race,  and  excluding  the 
negro  in  all  cases.  Still,  Mr.  Lincoln  conscientiously  believes  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  advocate  negro  citizenship.  He  M^ants  to  give  the  negro  the  privilege 
of  citizenship.  He  quotes  scripture  again,  and  says :  "  As  your  Father  in 
heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  And  he  applies  that  scriptural  quota- 
tion to  all  classes  ;  not  that  he  expects  ns  all  to  be  as  perfect  as  our  Master, 
but  as  nearly  perfect  as  possible.  In  other  words,  he  is  willing  to  give  the 
negro  an  equality  under  the  law,  in  order  that  he  may  approach  as  near  per- 
fection, or  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  as  possible.  To  this  same  end  he 
quotes  the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  these  words :  "  We  hold  these 
truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness ;"  and  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  negro  was  included, 
or  intended  to  be  included,  in  that  Declaration,  by  the  signers  of  the  paper. 
He  says  that,  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  therefore,  all  kinds  of  men, 
negroes  included,  were  created  equal  and  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights,  and,  further,  that  the  right  of  the  negro  to  be  on  an 
equality  with  the  white  man  is  a  divine  right,  conferred  by  the  Almighty,  and 
rendered  inalienable  according  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Hence 
no  human  law  or  constitution  can  deprive  the  negro  of  that  equality  with  the 
white  man  to  which  he  is  entitled  by  the  divine  law.  ["  Higher  law."]  Yes, 
higher  law.  Now,  I  do  not  question  Mr.  Lincoln's  sincerity  on  this  point. 
He  believes  that  the  negro,  by  the  divine  law,  is  created  the  equal  of  the 
white  man,  and  that  no  human  law  can  deprive  him  of  that  equality,  thus 
secured;  and  he  contends  that  the  negro  ought,  therefore,  to  have  all  the 
rights  and  privile.^es  of  citizenship  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  In 
order  to  accomplish  this,  the  first  thing  that  would  have  to  be  done  in  this 
State  would  be  to  blot  out  of  our  State  Constitution  that  clause  which  pro- 
hibits negroes  from  coming  into  this  State  and  making  it  an  African  colony, 


48  *  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

and  permit  them  to  come  and  spread  over  these  charming  prairies  until  in 
midday  they  shall  look  black  as  night.  When  our  friend  Lincoln  gets  all 
his  colored  brethren  around  him  here,  he  will  then  raise  them  to  perfection  as 
fast  as  possible,  and  place  them  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  first  re- 
moving all  legal  restrictions,  because  they  are  our  equals  by  divine  law,  and 
there  should  be  no  such  restrictions,  lie  wants  them  to  vote.  I  am  opposed 
to  it.  If  they  had  a  vote,  I  reckon  they  would  all  vote  for  him  in  preference 
to  me,  entertaining  the  views  I  do.  But  that  matters  not.  The  position  he 
has  taken  on  this  question  not  only  presents  him  as  claiming  for  them  the 
right  to  vote,  but  their  right,  under  the  divine  law  and  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  to  be  elected  to  office,  to  become  members  of  the  Legislature, 
to  "o  to  Congress,  to  become  Governors,  or  United  States  Senators,  or  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court ;  and  I  suppose  that  when  they  control  that  court  they 
will  probably  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  is  going  to  bring  negroes 
here,  and  give  them  the  right  of  citizenship,  the  right  of  voting,  and  the  right 
of  holding  office  and  sitting  on  juries  ;  and  what  else  ?  Why,  he  would  per- 
mit them  to  marry,  would  he  not  ?  And  if  he  gives  them  that  right,  I  sup- 
pose he  will  let  them  marry  whom  they  please,  provided  they  marry  their 
equals.  If  the  diviue  law  declares  that  the  white  man  is  the  equal  of  the 
negro  woman,  that  they  are  on  a  perfect  equality,  I  suppose  he  admits  the 
right  of  the  negro  woman  to  marry  the  white  man.  In  other  words,  his 
doctrine  that  the  negro,  by  divine  law,  is  placed  on  a  perfect  equality  with 
the  white  man,  and  that  that  equality  is  recognized  by  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  leads  him  necessarily  to  establish  negro  equality  under  the 
law  ;  but  whether  even  then  they  would  be  so  in  fact  would  depend  upon  the 
degree  of  virtue  and  intelligence  they  possessed,  and  certain  other  qualities 
that  are  matters  of  taste  rather  than  of  law.  I  do  not  understand  Mr.  Lincoln 
as  saying  that  he  expects  to  make  them  our  equals  socially,  or  by  intelligence, 
nor  in  fact  as  citizens,  but  that  he  wishes  to  make  them  our  equals  under  the 
law,  and  then  say  to  them,  "  as  your  Master  in  heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also 
perfect." 

Well,  I  confess  to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  I  am  utterly  opposed  to 
that  system  of  Abolition  philosophy.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  had  any  reference  to  negroes  when  tliey  used  the 
expression  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  or  that  they  had  any  reference  to 
the  Chinese  or  Coolies,  the  Indians,  the  Japanese,  or  any  other  inferior  race. 
They  were  speaking  of  the  white  race,  the  European  race  on  this  continent, 
and  their  descendants,  and  emigrants  who  should  come  here.  They  were 
speaking  only  of  the  white  race,  and  never  dreamed  that  their  language  would 
be  construed  to  include  the  negro.  And  now  for  the  evidence  of  that  fact. 
At  the  time  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  put  forth,  declaring  the 
equality  of  all  men,  every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies  was  a  slaveholding  col- 
ony, and  every  man  who  signed  that  Declaration  represented  a  slaveholding 
constituency.  Did  they  intend,  when  they  put  their  signatures  to  that  instru- 
ment, to  declare  that  their  own  slaves  were  on  an  equality  with  them  ;  that 
they  were  made  their  equals  by  divine  law,  and  that  any  human  law  reducing 
them  to  an  inferior  position  was  void,  as  being  in  violation  of  divine  law  ? 
Was  that  the  meaning  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ? 
Did  Jefferson  and  Henry  and  Lee,  —  did  any  of  the  signers  of  that  instru- 
ment, or  all  of  them,  on  the  day  they  signed  it,  give  their  slaves  freedom  ? 
History  records  that  they  did  not.  Did  they  go  further,  and  put  the  negro 
on  an  equality  with  the  white  man  throughout  the  country  ?     They  did  not. 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  r  49 

And  yet  if  they  had  understood  that  Declaration  as  inchiding  the  negro,  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  holds  they  did,  they  would  have  been  bound,  as  conscientious 
men,  to  have  restored  the  negro  to  that  equality  which  he  thinks  the  Almighty 
intended  they  should  occupy  with  the  white  man.     They  did  not  do  it.     Slav- 
ery was  abolished  in  only  one  State  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  in 
1789,  and  then  in  others  gradually,  down  to  the  time  this  Abolition  agitation 
began ;  and  it  has  not  been  abolished  in  one  since.     The  history  of  the  coun- 
try shows  that  neither  the  signers  of  the  Declaration,  or  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution,  ever  supposed  it  possible  that  their  language  would  be  used  in 
an  attempt  to  make  this  nation  a  mixed  nation  of  Indians,  negroes,  whites,  and 
mongrels.      I  repeat,  that  our  whole  history  confirms  the  proposition,  that 
from  the  earliest  settlement  of  tlie  colonies  down  to  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence and  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  our  fathers 
proceeded  on  tlie  white  basis,  making  the  white  people  the  governing  race,  but 
conceding  to  the  Indian  and  negro,  and  all  inferior  races,  all  the  rights  and 
all  the  privileges  tliey  could  enjoy  consistent  with  the  safety  of  the  society 
in  which  they  lived.     That  is  my  opinion  now.     I  told  you  that  humanity, 
philanthropy,  justice,  and    sound  policy  required  that   we   should   give    the 
negro  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity,  consistent  with  the  safety 
and  welfare  of  the  State.      The  question  then  naturally  arises,  What  are 
those  rights  and  privileges,  and  What  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  them  ?     My 
answer  is,  that  that  is  a  question  which  each  State  and  each  Territory  must 
decide  for  itself     We  have  decided  that  question.     We  have  said  that  in  this 
State  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  but  that  he  shall  enjoy  no  political  riglits ; 
that  negro  equality  shall  not  exist.     I  am  content  with  that  position.     My 
friend  Lincoln  is  not.     He  thinks  that  our  policy  and  our  laws  on  that  sub- 
ject are  contrary  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.     He  thinks  that  the 
Almighty  made  the  negro  his  equal  and  his  brother.     For  my  part,  I  do  not 
consider  the  negro  any  kin  to  me,  nor  to  any  otlier  white  man  ;  but  I  would 
still  carry  my  humanity  and  my  philanthropy  to  the  extent  of  giving  him 
every  privilege  and  every  immunity  that  he  could  enjoy,  consistent  with  our 
own  good.     We  in  Illinois  have  the  right  to  decide  upon  that  question  for  our- 
selves, and  we  are  bound  to  allow  every  other  State  to  do  the  same.     Maine 
allows  the  negro  to  vote  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.     I  do  not  quar- 
rel with  our  friends  in  Maine  for  that.     If  they  think  it  wise'  and  proper  in 
Maine  to  put  the  negro  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  and  allow  him  to 
go  to  the  polls  and  negative  the  vote  of  a  white  man,  it  is  their  business,  and 
not  mine.     On  the  other  hand.  New  York  permits  a  negro  to  vote,  provided  he 
owns  $250  worth  of  property.     New  York  thinks  that  a  negro  ought  to  be 
permitted  to  vote,  provided  he  is  rich,  but  not  otherwise.     They  allow  the 
aristocratic  negro  to  vote  there.     I  never  saw  the  wisdom,  the  propriety,  or 
the  justice  of  that  decision  on  the  part  of  New  York,  and  yet  it  never  occurred 
to  me  that  I  had  a  right  to  find  fault  with  that  State.     It  is  her  business ;  she 
is  a  sovereign  State,  and  has  a  right  to  do  as  she  pleases  ;  and  if  she  will  take 
care  of  her  own  negroes,  making  such  regulations  concerning  them  as  suit  her, 
and  let  us  alone,  I  will  mind  my  business,  and  not  interfere  with  her.     In 
Kentucky  they  will  not  give  a  negro  any  political  or  any  civil  rights.     I  shall 
not  argue  the  question  whether  Kentucky  in  so  doing  has  decided  right  or 
wrong,  wisely  or  unwisely.     It  is  a  question  for  Kentucky  to  decide  for  her- 
self.    I  believe  that  the  Kentuckians  have  consciences  as  well  as  ourselves ; 
they  have  as  keen  a  perception  of  their  religious,  moral,  and  social  duties  as 
we  have ;  and  I  am  willing  that  they  shall  decide  this  slavery  question  for 

7 


60  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

themselves,  and  be  accountable  to  their  God  for  their  action.     It  is  not  for  me 
to  arraign  them  for  what  they  do.     I  will  not  judge  them,  lest  I  shall  be 
judged.     Let  Kentucky  mind  her  own  business  and  take  care  of  her  negroes, 
and  we  attend  to  our  own  affairs  and  take  care  of  our  negroes,  and  we  will  be 
the  best  of  friends ;  but  if  Kentucky  attempts  to  interfere  with  us,  or  we  with 
her,  there  will  be  strife,  there  will  be  discord,  there  will  be  relentless  hatred, 
there  will  be  everything  but  fraternal  feeling  and  brotherly  love.     It  is  not 
necessary  that  you  should  enter  Kentucky  and  interfere  in  that  State,  to  use 
the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln.     It  is  just  as  offensive  to  interfere  from  this 
State,  or  send  your  missiles  over  there.     I  care  not  whether  an  enemy,  if  he  is 
going  to  assault  us,  shall  actually  come  into  our  State,  or  come  along  the  line, 
and  throw  his  bombshells  over  to  explode  in  our  midst.     Suppose  England 
should  plant  a  battery  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the  Niagara  Kiver,  opposite 
Buffalo,  and  throw  bombshells  over,  which  would  explode  in  Main  Street,  in 
that  city,  and  destroy  the  buildings,  and  that,  when  we  protested,  she  would 
say,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  she  never  dreamed  of  coming  into 
the  United  States  to  interfere  with  us,  and  that  she  was  just  throwing  her 
bombs  over  the  line  from  her  own  side,  which  she  had  a  right  to  do.     Would 
that  explanation  satisfy  us  ?     So  it  is  with  Mr.  Lincoln.     He  is  not  going  into 
Kentucky,  but  he  will  plant  his  batteries  on  this  side  of  the  Ohio,  where  he 
is  safe  and  secure  for  a  retreat,  and  will  throw  his  bombshells  —  his  Abolition 
documents  —  over  the  river,  and  will  carry  on  a  political  warfare,  and  get  up 
strife  between  the  North  and  the  South,  until  he  elects  a  sectional  President, 
reduces  the  South  to  the  condition  of  dependent  colonies,  raises  the  negro  to 
an  equality,  and  forces  the  South  to  submit  to  the  doctrine  that  a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand ;   that  the  Union  divided  into  half  slave 
States  and  half  free  cannot  endure  ;  that  they  must  all  be  slave  or  they  must 
all  be  free ;  and  that  as  we  in  the  North  are  in  the  majority,  we  will  not  per- 
mit them  to  be  all  slave,  and  therefore  they  in  the  South  must  consent  to  the 
States  all  being  free.     Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  submit  to  you  whether  these 
doctrines  are  consistent  with  the  peace  and  harmony  of  this  Union  ?     I  sub- 
mit to  you  whether   they  are  consistent  with  our  duties  as  citizens  of  a 
common  confederacy ;  whether  they  are  consistent  with  the  principles  which 
ought  to  govern  brethren  of  the  same  family  ?     I  recognize  all  the  people  of 
these  States,  North  and  South,  East  and  West,  old  or  new,  Atlantic  or  Pacific, 
as  our  brethren,  flesh  of  our  flesh,  and  I  will  do  no  act  unto  them  that  I  would 
not  be  willing  they  should  do  unto  us.     I  would  apply  the  same  Christian 
rule  to  the  States  of  this  Union  that  we  are  taught  to  apply  to  individuals,  — 
"Do  unto  others  as  you  would  have  others  do  unto  you;"  and  this  would 
secure  peace.     Why  should  this  slavery  agitation  be  kept  up  ?     Does  it  bene- 
fit the  white  man,  or  the  slave  ?     Who  does  it  benefit,  except  the  Republican 
politicians,  who  use  it  as  their  hobby  to  ride  into  office  ?     Why,  I  repeat, 
should  it  be  continued  ?     Why  cannot  we  be  content  to  administer  this  gov- 
ernment as  it  was  made,  — a  confederacy  of  sovereign  and  independent  States  ? 
Let  us  recognize  the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  each  State,  refrain  from 
interfering  with  the  domestic  institutions  and  regulations  of  other  States,  per- 
mit the  Territories  and  new  States  to  decide  their  institutions  for  themselves, 
as  we  did  when  we  were  in  their  condition ;  blot  out  these  lines  of  North  and 
South,  and  resort  back  to  these  lines  of  State  boundaries  which  the  Constitu- 
tion has  marked  out  and  engraved  upon  the  face  of  the  country  ;  have  no  other 
dividing  lines  but  these,  and  we  will  be  one  united,  harmonious  people,  with 
fraternal  feelings,  and  no  discord  or  dissension. 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  51 

These  are  my  views,  and  these  are  the  principles  to  which  I  have  devoted 
all  my  energies  since  1850,  when  I  acted  side  by  side  with  the  immortal  Clay 
and  the  god-like  Webster  in  that  memorable  struggle,  in  which  Whigs  and 
Democrats  united  upon  a  common  platform  of  patriotism  and  the  Constitu- 
tion, throwing  aside  partisan  feelings  in  order  to  restore  peace  and  harmony  to 
a  distracted  country.  And  when  I  stood  beside  the  death-bed  of  Mr.  Clay,  and 
heard  him  refer,  with  feelings  and  emotions  of  the  deepest  solicitude,  to  the 
welfare  of  the  country,  and  saw  that  he  looked  upon  the  principle  embodied 
in  the  great  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
the  doctrine  of  leaving  each  State  and  Territory  free  to  decide  its  institutions 
for  itself,  as  the  only  means  by  which  the  peace  of  the  country  could  be  pre- 
served and  the  Union  perpetuated,  —  I  pledged  him,  on  that  death-bed  of  his, 
that  so  long  as  I  lived,  my  energies  should  be  devoted  to  the  vindication  of 
that  principle,  and  of  his  fame  as  connected  with  it.  I  gave  the  same  pledge 
to  the  great  expounder  of  the  Constitution,  he  who  has  been  called  the  "god-like 
Webster."  I  looked  up  to  Clay  and  him  as  a  son  would  to  a  father,  and  I  call 
upon  the  people  of  Illinois,  and  the  people  of  the  whole  Union,  to  bear  testi- 
mony that  never  since  the  sod  has  been  laid  upon  the  graves  of  these  eminent 
statesmen  have  I  failed,  on  any  occasion,  to  vindicate  the  principle  with  which 
the  last  great  crowning  acts  of  their  lives  were  identified,  or  to  vindicate  their 
names  whenever  they  have  been  assailed ;  and  now  my  life  and  energy  are 
devoted  to  this  great  work  as  the  means  of  preserving  this  Union.  This 
Union  can  only  be  preserved  by  maintaining  the  fraternal  feeling  between  the 
Nortli  and  the  South,  the  East  and  the  West.  If  that  good  feeling  can  be  pre- 
served, the  Union  will  be  as  perpetual  as  the  fame  of  its  great  founders.  It 
can  be  maintained  by  preserving  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  the  right  of 
each  State  and  each  Territory  to  settle  its  domestic  concerns  for  itself,  and  the 
duty  of  each  to  refrain  from  interfering  with  the  other  in  any  of  its  local  or 
domestic  institutions.  Let  that  be  done,  and  the  Union  will  be  perpetual; 
let  that  be  done,  and  this  Republic,  which  began  with  thirteen  States,  and 
which  now  numbers  thirty-two,  which,  when  it  began,  only  extended  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi,  but  now  reaches  to  the  Pacific,  may  yet  expand. 
North  and  South,  until  it  covers  the  whole  Continent,  and  becomes  one  vast 
ocean-bound  confederacy.  Then,  my  friends,  the  path  of  duty,  of  honor,  of 
patriotism,  is  plain.  There  are  a  few  simple  principles  to  be  preserved.  Bear 
in  mind  the  dividing  line  between  State  rights  and  Federal  authority ;  let  us 
maintain  the  great  principles  of  popular  sovereignty,  of  State  rights,  and  of 
the  Federal  Union  as  the  Constitution  has  made  it,  and  this  Republic  will 
endure  forever. 

I  thank  you  kindly  for  the  patience  with  which  you  have  listened  to  me. 
I  fear  I  have  wearied  you.  I  have  a  heavy  day's  work  before  me  to-morrow, 
I  have  several  speeches  to  make.  My  friends,  in  whose  hands  I  am,  are  tax- 
ing me  beyond  human  endurance  ;  but  I  shall  take  the  helm  and  control  them 
hereafter.  I  am  profoundly  grateful  to  the  people  of  McLean  for  the  reception 
they  have  given  me,  and  the  kindness  with  which  they  have  listened  to  me. 
I  remember  when  I  first  came  among  you  here,  twenty-five  years  ago,  that  I 
was  prosecuting  attorney  in  this  district,  and  that  my  earliest  efforts  were 
made  here,  when  my  deficiencies  were  too  apparent,  I  am  afraid,  to  be  con- 
cealed from  any  one.  I  remember  the  courtesy  and  kindness  with  which  I 
was  uniformly  treated  by  you  all ;  and  whenever  I  can  recognize  the  face  of 
one  of  your  old  citizens,  it  is  like  meeting  an  old  and  cherished  friend.  I 
come  among  you  with  a  heart  filled  with  gratitude  for  past  favors.     I  have 


62  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

been  with  you  but  little  for  the  past  few  years,  on  account  of  my  official  duties. 
I  intend  to  visit  you  again  before  the  campaign  is  over.  I  wish  to  speak  to 
your  whole  people.  I  wish  them  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  correctness  of  my 
course,  and  the  soundness  of  the  principles  which  I  have  proclaimed.  If  you 
do  not  approve  my  principles,  I  cannot  ask  your  support.  If  you  believe  that 
the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  would  contribute  more  to  preserve  the  harmony 
of  the  country,  to  perpetuate  the  Union,  and  more  to  the  prosperity  and  the 
honor  and  glory  of  the  State,  then  it  is  your  duty  to  give  him  the  preference. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  you  believe  that  I  have  been  faithful  to  my  trust,  and  that 
by  sustaining  me  you  will  give  greater  strength  and  efficiency  to  the  princi- 
ples which  I  have  expounded,  I  shall  then  be  grateful  for  your  support.  I 
renew  my  profound  thanks  for  your  attention. 


SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  DOUGLAS, 

Delivered  July  17,  1858,  at  Sprixgfield,  III.     (Mr.  Lixcoln  was  not  present.) 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Felloav-citizens  of  Springfield  and  old  Sangamon  : 
My  heart  is  filled  with  emotions  at  the  allusions  which  have  been  so  happily 
and  so  kindly  made  in  the  welcome  just  extended  to  me,  —  a  welcome  so 
numerous  and  so  enthusiastic,  bringing  me  to  my  home  among  my  old  friends, 
that  language  cannot  express  my  gratitude.  I  do  feel  at  home  whenever  I 
return  to  old  Sangamon  and  receive  those  kind  and  friendly  greetings  which 
have  never  failed  to  meet  me  when  I  have  come  among  you ;  but  never  before 
have  I  had  such  occasion  to  be  grateful  and  to  be  proud  of  the  manner  of  the 
reception  as  on  the  present.  While  I  am  willing,  sir,  to  attribute  a  part  of 
this  demonstration  to  those  kind  and  friendly  personal  relations  to  which  you 
have  referred,  I  cannot  conceal  from  myself  that  the  controlling  and  pervad- 
ing element  in  this  great  mass  of  human  beings  is  devotion  to  that  principle  of 
self-government  to  which  so  many  years  of  my  life  have  been  devoted ;  and 
rejoice  more  in  considering  it  an  approval  of  my  support  of  a  cardinal  principle 
than  I  would  if  I  could  appropriate  it  to  myself  as  a  personal  compliment. 

You  but  speak  rightly  when  you  assert  that  during  the  last  session  of  Con- 
gress there  was  an  attempt  to  violate  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  upon 
which  our  free  institutions  rest.  The  attempt  to  force  the  Lecompton  Consti- 
tution upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  would  have  been,  if  suc- 
cessful, subversive  of  the  great  fundamental  principles  upon  which  all  our 
institutions  rest.  If  there  is  any  one  principle  more  sacred  and  more  vital  to 
the  existence  of  a  free  government  than  all  others,  it  is  the  right  of  the 
people  to  form  and  ratify  the  Constitution  under  which  they  are  to  live.  It  is 
the  corner-stone  of  the  temple  of  liberty ;  it  is  the  foundation  upon  which  the 
whole  structure  rests  ;  and  whenever  it  can  be  successfully  evaded,  self-gov- 
ernment has  received  a  vital  stab.  I  deemed  it  my  duty,  as  a  citizen  and  as 
a  representative  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  to  resist,  with  all  my  energies  and 
with  whatever  of  ability  I  could  command,  the  consummation  of  that  effort  to 
force  a  constitution  upon  an  unwilling  people. 

I  am  aware  that  other  questions  have  been  connected,  or  attempted  to  be 
connected,  with  that  great  struggle ;  but  they  were  mere  collateral  questions, 
not  affecting  the  main  point.     My  opposition  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS-  53 

rested  solely  upon  the  fact  that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people,  and 
that  it  did  not  embody  their  will.  I  did  not  object  to  it  upon  the  ground  of 
the  slavery  clause  contained  in  it.  I  should  have  resisted  it  with  the  same 
energy  and  determination  even  if  it  had  been  a  free  State  instead  of  a  slave- 
holding  State ;  and  as  an  evidence  of  this  fact  I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind 
that  my  speech  against  that  Lecompton  Act  was  made  on  the  9th  day  of 
December,  nearly  two  weeks  before  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  acceptance  or 
rejection  of  the  slavery  clause.  I  did  not  then  know,  I  could  not  have  known, 
whether  the  slavery  clause  would  be  accepted  or  rejected  ;  the  general  impres- 
sion was  that  it  would  be  rejected ;  and  in  my  speech  I  assumed  that  impres- 
sion to  be  true ;  that  probably  it  would  be  voted  down ;  and  then  I  said  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  as  I  now  proclaim  to  you,  my  constituents,  that  you  have 
no  more  right  to  force  a  free  State  upon  an  unwilling  people  than  you  have  to 
force  a  slave  State  upon  them  against  their  will.  You  have  no  right  to  force 
either  a  good  or  a  bad  thing  upon  a  people  who  do  not  choose  to  receive  it. 
And  then,  again,  the  highest  privilege  of  our  people  is  to  determine  for  them- 
selves what  kind  of  institutions  are  good  and  what  kind  of  institutions  are 
bad ;  and  it  may  be  true  that  the  same  people,  situated  in  a  different  latitude 
and  different  climate,  and  with  different  productions  and  different  interests, 
mifdit  decide  the  same  question  one  way  in  the  North  and  another  way  in 
the  South,  in  order  to  adapt  their  institutions  to  the  wants  and  wishes  of  the 
people  to  be  affected  by  them. 

You  all  are  familiar  with  the  Lecompton  struggle,  and  I  will  occupy  no 
more  time  upon  the  subject,  except  to  remark  that  when  we  drove  the  enemies 
of  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  from  the  effort  to  force  the  Lecompton 
Constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  when  we  compelled  them  to 
abandon  the  attempt  and  to  refer  that  Constitution  to  that  people  for  accept- 
ance or  rejection,  we  obtained  a  concession  of  the  principle  for  which  I  had 
contended  throughout  the  struggle.  When  I  saw  that  the  principle  was  con- 
ceded, and  that  the  Constitution  was  not  to  be  forced  on  Kansas  against  the 
wishes  of  the  people,  I  felt  anxious  to  give  the  proposition  my  support ;  but 
when  I  examined  it,  I  found  that  the  mode  of  reference  to  the  people  and  the 
form  of  submission,  upon  which  the  vote  was  taken,  was  so  objectionable  as 
to  make  it  unfair  and  unjust. 

Sir,  it  is  an  axiom  with  me  that  in  every  free  government  an  unfair 
election  is  no  election  at  all.  Every  election  should  be  free,  should  be  fair, 
with  the  same  privileges  and  the  same  inducements  for  a  negative  as  for 
an  aftirmative  vote.  The  objection  to  what  is  called  the  "  English  "  proposi- 
tion, by  which  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  referred  back  to  the  people  of 
Kansas,  was  this  :  that  if  the  people  chose  to  accept  the  Lecompton  Constitu- 
tion they  could  come  in  with  only  35,000  inhabitants ;  while  if  they  deter- 
mined to  reject  it  in  order  to  form  another  more  in  accordance  with  their 
wishes  and  sentiments,  they  were  compelled  to  stay  out  until  they  should 
have  93,420  inhabitants.  In  other  words,  it  was  making  a  distinction  and 
discrimination  between  Free  States  and  Slave  States  under  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. I  deny  the  justice,  I  deny  the  right,  of  any  distinction  or  discrimi- 
nation between  the  States  North  and  South,  free  or  slave.  Equality  among 
the  States  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  this  government.  Hence,  while  I 
will  never  consent  to  the  passage  of  a  law  that  a  Slave  State  may  come  in 
with  35,000,  while  a  Free  State  shall  not  come  in  unless  it  have  93,000,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  shall  not  consent  to  adnut  a  Free  State  with  a  population  of 
35,000,  and  require  93,000,  in  a  slaveholding  State. 


54  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

My  principle  is  to  recognize  each  State  of  the  Union  as  independent,  sov^- 
ereign,  and  equal  in  its  sovereignty.  I  will  apply  that  princiiDle,  not  only  to 
the  original  thirteen  States,  but  to  the  States  which  have  since  been  brou<>'ht 
into  the  Union,  and  also  to  every  State  that  shall  hereafter  be  received,  "  as 
long  as  water  shall  run,  and  grass  grow."  For  these  reasons  I  felt  compelled, 
by  a  sense  of  duty,  by  a  conviction  of  principle,  to  record  my  vote  against 
what  is  called  the  English  bill ;  but  yet  the  bill  became  a  law,  and  under  that 
law  an  election  has  been  ordered  to  be  held  on  the  first  Monday  in  August, 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  question  of  tlie  acceptance  or  rejection  of 
the  proposition  submitted  by  Congress.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  to 
you,  as  the  chairman  of  your  committee  has  justly  said  in  his  address,  that 
whatever  the  decision  of  the  people  of  Kansas  may  be  at  that  election,  it  must 
be  final  and  conclusive  of  the  whole  subject ;  for  if  at  that  election  a  majority 
of  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  vote  for  the  acceptance  of  the  Congressional 
proposition,  Kansas  from  that  moment  becomes  a  State  of  the  Union,  the 
law  admitting  her  becomes  irrepealable,  and  thus  the  controversy  terminates 
forever ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  vote  down  that 
proposition,  as  it  is  now  generally  admitted  they  will,  by  a  large  majority, 
then  from  that  instant  the  Lecompton  Constitution  is  dead,  —  dead  beyond 
the  power  of  resurrection ;  and  thus  the  controversy  terminates.  And  when 
the  monster  shall  die,  I  shall  be  willing,  and  trust  that  all  of  you  will  be 
willing,  to  acquiesce  in  the  death  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  The  con- 
troversy may  now  be  considered  as  terminated,  for  in  three  weeks  from  now 
it  will  be  finally  settled,  and  all  the  ill-feeling,  all  the  embittered  feeling 
which  grew  out  of  it  shall  cease,  unless  an  attempt  should  be  made  in  the 
future  to  repeat  the  same  outrage  upon  popular  rights.  I  need  not  tell  you 
that  my  past  course  is  a  sufhcient  guarantee  that  if  the  occasion  shall  ever 
arise  again  wliile  I  occupy  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  you  will  find 
me  carrying  out  the  same  principle  that  I  have  this  winter,  with  all  the  energy 
and  all  the  power  I  may  be  able  to  command.  I  have  the  gratification  of 
saying  to  you  that  I  do  not  believe  that  that  controversy  will  ever  arise 
again  :  first,  because  the  fate  of  Lecompton  is  a  warning  to  the  people  of  every 
Territory  and  of  every  State  to  be  cautious  how  the  example  is  repeated ;  and, 
secondly,  because  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  annual  message, 
has  said  that  he  trusts  the  example  in  the  Minnesota  case,  wherein  Congress 
passed  a  law,  called  an  Enabling  Act,  requiring  the  Constitution  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rejection,  will  be  followed  in  all  future 
cases.  ["  That  was  right."]  I  agree  with  you  that  it  was  right.  I  said  so 
on  the  day  after  the  message  was  delivered,  in  my  speech  in  the  Senate  on 
the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  I  have  frequently  in  the  debate  tendered  to 
the  President  and  his  friends,  tendered  to  the  Lecomptonites,  my  voluntary 
pledge,  that  if  he  will  stand  by  that  recommendation,  and  they  will  stand  by 
it,  that  thev  will  find  me  workino;  hand  in  hand  w^ith  them  in  the  effort  to 
carry  it  out.  All  we  have  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  adhere  firmly  in  the  future, 
as  we  have  done  in  the  past,  to  the  principle  contained  in  the  recommendation 
of  the  President  in  his  annual  message,  that  the  example  in  the  Minnesota 
case  shall  be  carried  out  in  all  future  cases  of  the  admission  of  Territories  into 
the  Union  as  States.  Let  that  be  done,  and  the  principle  of  popular  sover- 
eignty will  be  maintained  in  all  of  its  vigor  and  all  of  its  integrity.  I  rejoice  to 
know  that  Illinois  stands  prominently  and  proudly  forward  among  the  States 
which  first  took  their  position  firmly  and  immovably  upon  this  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty,  applied  to  the  Territories  as  well  as  to  the  States.     You 


AND   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS.  55 

all  recollect  when,  in  1850,  the  peace  of  the  country  was  disturbed  in  conse- 
quence of  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  and  the  effort  to  force  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  upon  all  the  Territories,  that  it  required  all  the  talent  and  all 
the  energy,  all  tlie  wisdom,  all  the  patriotism,  of  a  Clay  and  a  Webster,  united 
with  other  great  party  leaders,  to  devise  a  system  of  measures  by  which  peace 
and  harmony  could  be  restored  to  our  distracted  country.  Those  compromise 
measures  eventually  passed,  and  were  recorded  on  the  statute  book,  not  only 
as  the  settlement  of  the  then  existing  difficulties,  but  as  furnishing  a  rule  of 
action  which  should  prevent  in  all  future  time  the  recurrence  of  like  evils,  if 
they  were  firmly  and  fairly  carried  out.  Those  compromise  measures  rested, 
as  I  said  in  my  speech  at  Chicago  on  my  return  home  that  year,  upon  the 
principle  that  every  people  ought  to  have  the  right  to  form  and  regulate  their 
own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution. 
They  were  founded  upon  the  principle  that  while  every  State  possessed  that 
right  under  the  Constitution,  that  tlie  same  right  ought  to  be  extended  to  and 
exercised  by  the  people  of  the  Territories.  When  the  Illinois  Legislature 
assembled,  a  few  months  after  the  adoption  of  these  measures,  the  first  thing 
the  members  did  was  to  review  their  action  upon  this  slavery  agitation,  and 
to  correct  the  errors  into  which  their  predecessors  had  fallen.  You  remember 
that  their  first  act  was  to  repeal  the  Wilmot  Proviso  instructions  to  our 
United  States  Senators,  which  had  been  previously  passed,  and  in  lieu  of 
them  to  record  another  resolution  upon  the  journal,  with  which  you  must  all 
be  familiar,  —  a  resolution  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Ninian  Edwards,  and 
adopted  by  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  by  a  vote  of  61  in  the  affirmative  to 
4  in  the  negative.  That  resolution  I  can  quote  to  you  in  almost  its  precise 
language.  It  declared  that  the  great  principle  of  self-government  was  the 
birthright  of  freemen,  was  the  gift  of  Heaven,  was  achieved  by  the  blood  of 
our  revolutionary  fathers,  and  must  be  continued  and  carried  out  in  the 
organization  of  all  the  Territories  and  the  admission  of  all  new  States.  That 
became  the  Illinois  platform  by  the  United  voices  of  the  Democratic  party 
and  of  the  Whig  party  in  1851 ;  all  the  Whigs  and  all  the  Democrats  in 
the  Legislature  uniting  in  an  affirmative  vote  upon  it,  and  there  being  only 
four  votes  in  the  negative,  —  of  Abolitionists,  of  course.  Tliat  resolution 
stands  upon  the  journal  of  your  Legislature  to  this  day  and  hour  unrepealed, 
as  a  standing,  living,  perpetual  instruction  to  the  Senators  from  Illinois  in  all 
time  to  come  to  carry  out  that  principle  of  self-government,  and  allow  no 
limitation  upon  it  in  the  organization  of  any  Territories  or  the  admission  of 
any  new  States,  In  1854,  wlien  it  became  my  duty  as  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  Territories  to  bring  forward  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska,  I  incorporated  that  principle  in  it,  and  Congress  passed  it,  thus 
carrying  the  principle  into  practical  effect.  I  will  not  recur  to  tlie  scenes 
which  took  place  all  over  the  country  in  1854,  when  that  Nebraska  bill 
passed.  I  could  then  travel  from  Boston  to  Chicago  by  the  light  of  my  own 
effigies,  in  consequence  of  having  stood  up  for  it.  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say  how 
I  met  that  storm,  and  whether  I  quailed  under  it ;  whether  I  did  not  "  face 
the  music,"  justify  the  principle,  and  pledge  my  life  to  carry  it  out. 

A  friend  here  reminds  me,  too,  that  when  making  speeches  then,  justifying 
the  Nebraska  bill  and  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  that  I  predicted 
that  in  less  than  five  years  you  would  have  to  get  out  a  search-warrant  to  find 
an  anti-Nebraska  man.  Well,  I  believe  I  did  make  that  prediction.  I  did 
not  claim  the  power  of  a  prophet,  but  it  occurred  to  me  that  among  a  free 
people,  and  an  honest  people,  and  an  intelligent  people,  that  five  years  was 


56  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

long  enough  for  them  to  come  to  an  understanding  that  the  great  principle  of 
self-government  was  right,  not  only  in  the  States,  but  in  the  Territories.  I 
rejoiced  this  year  to  see  my  prediction,  in  that  respect,  carried  out  and  fulfilled 
by  the  unanimous  vote,  in  one  form  or  another,  of  both  Houses  of  Congress. 
If  you  will  remember  that  pending  this  Lecompton  controversy  that  gallant 
old  Itoman,  Kentucky's  favorite  son,  the  worthy  successor  of  the  immortal 
Clay,  —  I  allude,  as  you  know,  to  the  gallant  John  J.  Crittenden,  —  brought 
forward  a  bill,  now  known  as  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill,  in  which  it  was 
proposed  that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  should  be  referred  back  to  the 
people  of  Kansas,  to  be  decided  for  or  against  it,  at  a  fair  election,  and  if  a 
majority  of  the  people  were  in  favor  of  it,  that  Kansas  should  come  into  the 
Union  as  a  slaveholding  State,  but  that  if  a  majority  were  against  it,  that 
they  should  make  a  new  constitution,  and  come  in  with  slavery  or  without  it, 
as  they  thought  proper.  ["  That  was  right."]  Yes,  my  dear  sir,  it  was  not 
only  right,  but  it  was  carrying  out  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  its  letter 
and  in  its  spirit.  Of  course  I  voted  for  it,  and  so  did  every  Eepublican  Sen- 
ator and  Eepresentative  in  Congress.  I  have  found  some  Democrats  so  per- 
fectly straight  that  they  blame  me  for  voting  for  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska 
bill  because  the  Eepublicans  voted  the  same  way.  [Great  laughter.  "  What 
did  they  say  ? "] 

What  did  they  say  ?  Why,  many  of  them  said  that  Douglas  voted  with  the 
Eepublicans.  Yes,  not  only  that,  but  with  the  hlack  Eepublicans.  Well,  there 
are  different  modes  of  stating  that  proposition.  The  "  New  York  Tribune  " 
says  that  Douglas  did  not  vote  with  the  Eepublicans,  but  that  on  that  ques- 
tion the  Eepublicans  went  over  to  Douglas  and  voted  with  him. 

My  friends,  I  have  never  yet  abandoned  a  principle  because  of  the  support 
I  found  men  yielding  to  it,  and  I  shall  never  abandon  my  Democratic  princi- 
ples merely  because  Eepublicans  come  to  them.  For  what  do  we  travel  over 
the  country  and  make  speeches  in  every  political  canvass,  if  it  is  not  to 
enlighten  the  minds  of  these  Eepublicans,  to  remove  the  scales  from  their  eyes, 
and  to  impart  to  them  the  light  of  Democratic  vision,  so  that  they  may  be 
able  to  carry  out  the  Constitution  of  our  country  as  our  fathers  made  it.  And 
if  by  preaching  our  principles  to  the  people  we  succeed  in  convincing  the 
Eepublicans  of  the  errors  of  their  ways,  and  bring  them  over  to  us,  are  we 
bound  to  turn  traitors  to  our  principles  merely  because  they  give  them  their 
support  ?  All  I  have  to  say  is  that  I  hope  the  Eepublican  party  will  stand 
firm,  in  the  future,  by  the  vote  they  gave  on  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill.  I 
hope  we  will  find,  in  the  resolutions  of  their  County  and  Congressional  Conven- 
tions, no  declarations  of  "no  more  Slave  States  to  be  admitted  into  this  Union," 
but  in  lieu  of  that  declaration  that  we  will  find  the  principle  that  the  people 
of  every  State  and  every  Territory  shall  come  into  the  Union  with  slavery  or 
without  it,  just  as  they  please,  without  any  interference  on  the  part  of  Congress. 

My  friends,  wdiilst  I  was  at  Washington,  engaged  in  this  great  battle  for 
sound  constitutional  principles,  I  find  from  the  newspapers  that  the  Eepub- 
lican party  of  this  State  assembled  in  this  capital  in  State  Convention,  and 
not  only  nominated,  as  it  was  wise  and  proper  for  them  to  do,  a  man  for  my 
successor  in  the  Senate,  but  laid  down  a  platform,  and  their  nominee  made  a 
speech,  carefully  written  and  prepared,  and  well  delivered,  whicli  that  Conven- 
tion accepted  as  containing  the  Eepublican  creed.  I  have  no  comment  to 
make  on  that  part  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  speech  in  which  he  represents  me  as  form- 
ing a  conspiracy  with  the  Supreme  Court,  and  with  the  late  President  of  the 
United  States  and  the  present  chief  magistrate,  having  for  my  object  tlie 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  67 

passage  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  the  extension  of 
slavery,  —  a  scheme  of  political  tricksters,  composed  of  Chief  Justice  Taney 
and  his  eight  associates,  two  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  and  one  Senator 
of  Illinois.  If  Mr.  Lincoln  deems  me  a  conspirator  of  that  kind,  all  I  have 
to  say  is  that  I  do  not  think  so  badly  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on 
earth,  as  to  believe  that  they  were  capable  in  their  action  and  decision  of  enter- 
ing into  political  intrigues  for  partisan  purposes.  I  therefore  shall  only  notice 
those  parts  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  speech  in  which  he  lays  down  his  platform  of 
principles,  and  tells  you  what  he  intends  to  do  if  he  is  elected  to  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States. 

[An  old  gentleman  here  rose  on  the  platform  and  said  :  "  Be  particular  now, 
Judge,  be  particular."] 

Mr.  Douglas  :  My  venerable  friend  here  says  that  he  will  be  gratified  if  I 
will  be  particular ;  and  in  order  that  I  may  be  so,  I  will  read  the  language  of 
My.  Lincoln  as  reported  by  himself  and  published  to  the  country.  Mr.  Lincoln 
lays  down  his  main  proposition  in  these  words  :  — 

"  *  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  Union  cannot 
endure  permanently,  half  free  and  half  slave.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  will  be 
dissolved,  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  ftill ;  but  I  do  expect  it  to  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  wiU  become  all  one  thin"  or  all  the  other." 


o 


Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  think  this  Union  can  continue  to  exist  composed  of 
half  slave  and  half  free  States ;  they  must  all  be  free,  or  all  slave.  I  do  not 
doubt  that  this  is  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  conviction.  I  do  not  doubt  that 
he  thinks  it  is  the  highest  duty  of  every  patriotic  citizen  to  preserve  this 
glorious  Union,  and  to  adopt  these  measures  as  necessary  to  its  preservation. 
He  tells  you  that  the  only  mode  to  preserve  the  Union  is  to  make  all  the 
States  free,  or  all  slave.  It  must  be  the  one,  or  it  must  be  the  other.  Now, 
that  being  essential,  in  his  estimation,  to  the  preservation  of  this  glorious 
Union,  how  is  he  going  to  accomplish  it  ?  He  says  that  he  wants  to  go  to  the 
Senate  in  order  to  carry  out  this  favorite  patriotic  policy  of  his,  of  making 
all  the  States  free,  so  that  the  house  shall  no  longer  be  divided  against  itself 
When  he  gets  to  the  Senate,  by  what  means  is  he  going  to  accomplish  it  ?  By 
an  Act  of  Congress  ?  Will  he  contend  that  Congress  has  any  power  under  the 
Constitution  to  abolish  slavery  in  any  State  of  this  Union,  or  to  interfere  with 
it  directly  or  indirectly  ?  Of  course  he  will  not  contend  that.  Then  what  is 
to  be  his  mode  of  carrying  out  his  principle,  by  which  slavery  shall  be  abol- 
ished in  all  of  the  States  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  certainly  does  not  speak  at  random. 
He  is  a  lawyer,  —  an  eminent  lawyer,  —  and  his  profession  is  to  know  the 
remedy  for  every  wrong.  What  is  his  remedy  for  this  imaginary  wrong  which 
he  supposes  to  exist  ?  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  it 
may  be  amended  by  Congress  passing  an  amendment  by  a  two-thirds  majority 
of  each  house,  which  shall  be  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  States ;  and  the 
inference  is  that  Mr.  Lincoln  intends  to  carry  this  slavery  agitation  into  Con- 
gress with  the  view  of  amending  the  Constitution  so  that  slavery  can  be  abol- 
ished in  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  In  other  words,  he  is  not  going  to  allow 
one  portion  of  the  Union  to  be  slave  and  another  portion  to  be  free ;  he  is  not 
going  to  permit  the  house  to  be  divided  against  itself.  He  is  going  to  remedy 
it  by  lawful  and  constitutional  means.  What  are  to  be  these  means  ?  How  can 
he  abolish  slavery  in  those  States  where  it  exists  ?     There  is  but  one  mode  by 

8 


58  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

which  a  political  organization,  composed  of  men  in  the  Free  States,  can  abolish 
slavery  in  the  slaveholdiug  States,  and  that  would  be  to  abolish  the  State  Legis- 
latures, blot  out  of  existence  the  State  sovereignties,  invest  Congress  with  full 
and  plenary  power  over  all  the  local  and  domestic  and  police  regulations  of 
the  different  States  of  this  Union.  Then  there  would  be  uniformity  in  the 
local  concerns  and  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  States ;  then  the 
house  would  be  no  longer  divided  against  itself;  then  the  States  would  all  be 
free,  or  they  would  all  be  slave ;  then  you  would  have  uniformity  prevailing 
throuuhout  this  whole  land  in  the  local  and  domestic  institutions  :  but  it  would 
be  a  uniformity,  not  of  liberty,  but  a  uniformity  of  despotism  that  would 
triumph.  I  submit  to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  whether  this  is  not  the  logical 
consequence  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  proposition  ?  I  have  called  on  Mr.  Lincoln  to 
explain  what  he  did  mean,  if  he  did  not  mean  this,  and  he  has  made  a  speech 
at  Chicago  in  which  he  attempts  to  explain.  And  how  does  he  explain  ?  I 
will  give  him  the  benefit  of  his  own  language,  precisely  as  it  M'as  reported  in 
the  Republican  papers  of  that  city,  after  undergoing  his  revision :  — 

"  I  have  said  a  hundred  tiroes,  and  have  now  no  incHnation  to  take  it  back, 
that  I  believe  there  is  no  right  and  ought  to  be  no  inclination  in  the  people  of  the 
Free  States  to  enter  into  the  Slave  States  and  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery 
at  all." 

He  believes  there  is  no  right  on  the  part  of  the  free  people  of  the  Free 
States  to  enter  the  Slave  States  and  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery, 
hence  he  does  not  propose  to  go  into  Kentucky  and  stir  up  a  civil  war  and  a 
servile  war  between  the  blacks  and  the  whites.  All  he  proposes  is  to  invite  the 
people  of  Illinois  and  every  other  Free  State  to  band  together  as  one  sectional 
party,  governed  and  divided  by  a  geographical  line,  to  make  war  upon  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  slaveholdiug  States.  He  is  going  to  carry  it  out  by 
means  of  a  political  party  that  has  its  adherents  only  in  the  Free  States,  —  a 
political  party  that  does  not  pretend  that  it  can  give  a  solitary  vote  in  tlie 
Slave  States  of  the  Union  ;  and  by  this  sectional  vote  he  is  going  to  elect  a 
President  of  the  United  States,  form  a  cabinet,  and  administer  the  govern- 
ment on  sectional  grounds,  being  the  power  of  the  North  over  that  of  tie 
South.  In  other  words,  he  invites  a  war  of  the  North  against  the  South,  a 
warfare  of  the  Free  States  against  the  slaveholdiug  States.  He  asks  all  men 
in  the  Free  States  to  conspire  to  exterminate  slavery  in  the  Southern  States, 
so  as  to  make  them  all  free,  and  then  he  notifies  the  South  that  unless  they 
are  going  to  submit  to  our  efforts  to  exterminate  tlieir  institutions,  they  must 
band  together  and  plant  slavery  in  Illinois  and  every  Northern  State.  He  says 
that  the  States  must  all  be  free  or  must  all  be  slave.  On  this  point  I  take 
issue  with  him  directly.  I  assert  that  Illinois  has  a  right  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  herself  We  have  decided  it,  and  I  think  we  have  done  it  M'isely  ; 
but  whether  wisely  or  unwisely,  it  is  our  business,  and  the  people  of  no  other 
State  have  any  right  to  interfere  with  us,  directly  or  indirectly.  Claiming  as 
we  do  this  right  for  ourselves,  we  must  concede  it  to  every  other  State,  to  be 
exercised  by  them  respectively. 

Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  he  will  not  enter  into  Kentucky  to  abolish  slav- 
ery there,  but  that  all  he  will  do  is  to  fight  slavery  in  Kentucky  from  Illinois. 
He  will  not  go  over  there  to  set  fire  to  the  match.  I  do  not  think  he  would. 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  very  prudent  man.  He  would  not  deem  it  wise  to  go  over 
into  Kentucky  to  stir  up  this  strife,  but  he  would  do  it  from  this  side  of  the 
river.     Permit  me  to  inquire  whether  the  wrong,  the  outrage,  of  interference 


AND   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS.  69 

by  one  State  with  the  local  concerns  of  another  is  worse  when  you  actually 
invade  them  than  it  would  be  if  you  carried  on  the  warfare  from  another 
State  ?    For  the  purpose  of  illustration,  suppose  the  British  Government  should 
plant  a  battery  on  the  Niagara  River,  opposite  Buffalo,  and  throw  their  shells 
over  into  Buffalo,  where  they  should  explode  and  blow  up  the  houses  and 
destroy  the  town.    We  call  the  British  Government  to  an  account,  and  they  say, 
in  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  we  did  not  enter  into  the  limits  of  the  United 
States  to  interfere  with  you ;  we  planted  the  battery  on  our  own  soil,  and  had 
a  right  to  shoot  from  our  own  soil ;  and  if  our  shells  and  balls  fell  in  Buffalo 
and  killed  your  inhabitants,  why,  it  is  your  look-out,  not  ours.     Thus,  Mr. 
Lincoln  is  going  to  plant  his  Abolition  batteries  all  along  the  banks  of  the 
Ohio  River,  and  throw  his  shells  into  Virginia  and  Kentucky  and  into  Mis- 
souri, and  blow  up  the  institution  of  slavery  ;  and  when  we  arraign  him  for  his 
unjust  interference  with  the  institutions  of  the  other  States,  he  says,  "  Why,  I 
never  did  enter  into  Kentucky  to  interfere  with  her ;  I  do  not  propose  to  do 
it ;  I  only  propose  to  take  care  of  my  own  head  by  keeping  on  this  side  of  the 
river,  out  of  harm's  way."     But  yet  he  says  he  is  going  to  persevere  in  this 
system  of  sectional  warfare,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he  is  sincere  in  what  he  says. 
He  says  that  the  existence  of  the  Union  depends  upon  his  success  in  firing 
into  these  Slave  States  until  he  exterminates  them.     He  says  that  unless  he 
shall  play  his  batteries  successfully,  so  as  to  abolish  slavery  in  every  one  of  the 
States,  that  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved ;  and  he  says  that  a  dissolution  of 
the  Union  would  be  a  terrible  calamity.     Of  course  it  would.     We  are  all 
friends  of  the  Union.     We  all  believe  —  I  do  —  that  our  lives,  our  liberties, 
our  hopes  in  the  future,  depend  upon  the  preservation  and  perpetuity  of  this 
glorious  Union.     I  believe  that  the  hopes  of  the  friends  of  liberty  throughout 
the  world  depend  upon  the  perpetuity  of  the  American  Union.     But  while  I 
believe  that  my  mode  of  preserving  the  Union  is  a  very  different  one  from 
that  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  believe  that  the  Union  can  only  be  preserved  by  main- 
taining inviolate  the  Constitution  of  tlie  United  States  as  our  fathers  have 
made  it.     That  Constitution  guarantees  to  the  people  of  every  State  the  right 
to  have  slavery  or  not  have  it ;  to  have  negroes  or  not  have  them ;  to  have 
Maine  liquor  laws  or  not  have  them;  to  have  just  such  institutions  as  they 
choose,  each  State  being  left  free  to  decide  for  itself.     The  framers  of  that 
Constitution  never  conceived  the  idea  that  uniformity  in  the  domestic  insti- 
tutions of  the  different  States  was  either  desirable  or   possible.     They  well 
understood  that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  would  be  well  adapted  to  the 
granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  would  be  unfit  for  the  rice  plantations  of 
South  Carolina ;  they  well  understood  that  each  one  of  the  thirteen  States  had 
distinct  and  separate  interests,  and  required  distinct  and  separate  local  laws 
and  local  institutions.     And  in  view  of  that  fact  they  provided  that  each  State 
should  retain  its  sovereign  power  within  its  own  limits,  with  the  right  to  make 
just  such  laws  and  just  such  institutions  as  it  saw  proper,  under  the  belief 
that  no  two  of  them  would  be  alike.     If  they  had  supposed  tliat  uniformity 
was  desirable  and  possible,  why  did  they  provide  for  a  separate  legislature  for 
each  State  ?     Why  did  they  not  blot  out  State  sovereignty  and  State  legis- 
latures, and  give  all  the  power  to  Congress,  in  order  that  the  laws  might  be 
uniform  ?     For  the  very  reason  that  uniformity,  in  their  opinion,  was  neither 
desirable  or  possible.     We  have  increased  from  thirteen  States  to  thirty-two 
States;  and  just  in  proportion  as  the  number  of  States  increases  and  our  ter- 
ritory expands,  there  will  be  a  still  greater  variety  and  dissimilarity  of  climate,  of 
production,  and  of  interest,  requiring  a  corresponding  dissimilarity  and  variety 


60  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

in  the  local  laws  and  institutions  adapted  thereto.  The  laws  that  are  neces- 
sary in  the  mining  regions  of  California  would  be  totally  useless  and  vicious 
on  the  prairies  of  Illinois ;  the  laws  that  would  suit  the  lumber  regions  of 
Maine  or  of  Minnesota  would  be  totally  useless  and  valueless  in  the  tobacco 
regions  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky ;  the  laws  which  would  suit  the  manufac- 
turing districts  of  New  England  would  be  totally  unsuited  to  the  planting 
regions  of  the  Carolinas,  of  Georgia,  and  of  Louisiana.  Each  State  is  supposed 
to  have  interests  separate  and  distinct  from  each  and  every  other ;  and  hence 
must  have  laws  different  from  each  and  every  other  State,  in  order  that  its 
laws  shall  be  adapted  to  the  condition  and  necessities  of  the  people.  Hence  I 
insist  that  our  institutions  rest  on  the  theory  that  there  shall  be  dissimilarity 
and  variety  in  the  local  laws  and  institutions  of  the  different  States,  instead 
of  all  being  uniform ;  and  you  find,  my  friends,  that  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself 
differ  radically  and  totally  on  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  government. 
He  goes  for  consolidation,  for  uniformity  in  our  local  institutions,  for  blotting 
out  State  rights  and  State  sovereignty,  and  consolidating  all  the  power  in  the 
Federal  Government,  for  converting  these  thirty-two  sovereign  States  into  one 
empii'e,  and  making  uniformity  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  go  for  maintaining  the  authority  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment within  the  limits  marked  out  by  the  Constitution,  and  then  for  main- 
taining and  preserving  the  sovereignty  of  each  and  all  of  the  States  of  the 
Union,  in  order  that  eacli  State  may  regulate  and  adopt  its  own  local  institu- 
tions in  its  own  way,  without  interference  from  any  power  whatsoever.  Thus 
you  find  there  is  a  distinct  issue  of  principles  —  principles  irreconcilable  — 
between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself.  He  goes  for  consolidation  and  uniformity 
in  our  government ;  I  go  for  maintaining  the  confederation  of  the  sovereign 
States  under  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  leaving  each  State  at  lib- 
erty to  manage  its  own  affairs  and  own  internal  institutions. 

Mr.  Lincoln  makes  another  point  upon  me,  and  rests  his  whole  case  upon 
these  two  points.  His  last  point  is,  that  he  will  wage  a  warfare  upon  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He 
takes  occasion,  in  his  speech  made  before  the  Eepublican  Convention,  in  my 
absence,  to  arraign  me,  not  only  for  having  expressed  my  acquiescence  in  that 
decision,  but  to  charge  me  with  being  a  conspirator  with  that  court  in  devis- 
ing that  decision  three  years  before  Dred  Scott  ever  thought  of  commencing  a 
suit  for  his  freedom.  The  object  of  his  speech  was  to  convey  the  idea  to  the 
people  that  the  court  could  not  be  trusted,  that  the  late  President  could  not 
be  trusted,  that  the  present  one  could  not  be  trusted,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas 
could  not  be  trusted;  that  they  were  all  conspirators  in  bringing  about  that 
corrupt  decision,  to  which  Mr.  Lincoln  is  determined  he  will  never  yield  a 
willing  obedience. 

He  makes  two  points  upon  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  The  first  is  that  he 
objects  to  it  because  the  court  decided  that  negroes  descended  of  slave  parents 
are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  and,  secondly,  because  they  have 
decided  that  the  Act  of  Congress  passed  8th  of  March,  1820,  prohibiting 
slavery  in  all  of  the  Territories  north  of  36°  30',  was  unconstitutional  and  void, 
and  hence  did  not  have  effect  in  emancipating  a  slave  brought  into  that  Terri- 
tory. And  he  will  not  submit  to  that  decision.  He  says  that  he  will  not  fight 
the  Judges  or  the  United  States  Marshals  in  order  to  liberate  Dred  Scott,  but 
that  he  will  not  respect  that  decision,  as  a  rule  of  law  binding  on  this  country, 
in  the  future.  Why  not  ?  Because,  he  says,  it  is  unjust.  How  is  he  going 
to  remedy  it  ?     Why,  he  says  he  is  going  to  reverse  it.     How  ?     He  is  going 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  '  61 

to  take  an  appeal.  To  whom  is  he  going  to  appeal  ?  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  provides  that  the  Supreme  Court  is  the  ultimate  tribunal,  the 
highest  judicial  tribunal  on  earth ;  and  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  appeal  from 
that.  To  whom  ?  I  know  he  appealed  to  the  Eepublican  State  Convention 
of  Illinois,  and  I  believe  that  Convention  reversed  the  decision ;  but  I  am  not 
aware  that  they  have  yet  carried  it  into  effect.  How  are  they  going  to  make 
that  reversal  effectual  ?  Why,  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  us  in  his  late  Chicago  speech. 
He  explains  it  as  clear  as  light.  He  says  to  the  people  of  Illinois  that  if  you 
elect  him  to  the  Senate  he  will  introduce  a  bill  to  re-enact  the  law  which  the 
court  pronounced  unconstitutional.  [Shouts  of  laughter,  and  voices,  "  Spot 
the  law."]  Yes,  he  is  going  to  spot  the  law.  The  court  pronounces  that  law, 
prohibiting  slavery,  unconstitutional  and  void,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to 
pass  an  Act  reversing  that  decision  and  making  it  valid.  I  never  heard 
before  of  an  appeal  being  taken  from  the  Supreme  Court  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  to  reverse  its  decision.  I  have  heard  of  appeals  being 
taken  from  Congress  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  declare  a  statute  void.  That 
has  been  done  from  the  earliest  days  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall  down  to  the 
present  time. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  an  Act  of  the 
Legislature  void,  as  being  repugnant  to  tlie  Constitution,  and  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  is  vested  by  the  Constitution  with  that  very  power. 
The  Constitution  says  that  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
vested  in  the  Supreme  Court  and  such  inferior  courts  as  Congress  shall,  from 
time  to  time,  ordain  and  establish.  Hence  it  is  the  province  and  duty  of  the 
Supreme  Court  to  pronounce  judgment  on  the  validity  and  constitutionality 
of  an  Act  of  Congress.  In  this  case  they  have  done  so,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  will 
not  submit  to  it,  and  he  is  going  to  reverse  it  by  another  Act  of  Congress  of 
the  same  tenor.  My  opinion  is  that  Mr.  Lincoln  ought  to  be  on  the  Supreme 
Bench  himself,  when  the  Eepublicans  get  into  power,  if  that  kind  of  law  knowl- 
edge qualifies  a  man  for  the  bench.  But  Mr.  Lincoln  intimates  that  there  is 
another  mode  by  which  he  can  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  How  is 
that  ?  Why,  he  is  going  to  appeal  to  the  people  to  elect  a  President  who  will 
appoint  judges  who  will  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Well,  let  us  see 
how  that  is  going  to  be  done.  First,  he  has  to  carry  on  his  sectional  organiza- 
tion, a  party  confined  to  the  Free  States,  making  war  upon  the  slaveholding 
States  until  he  gets  a  Eepublican  President  elected.  ["  He  never  will,  sir."] 
I  do  not  believe  he  ever  will.  But  suppose  he  should ;  when  that  Eepublican 
President  shall  have  taken  his  seat  (Mr.  Seward,  for  instance),  will  he  then 
proceed  to  appoint  judges  ?  No !  he  will  have  to  wait  until  the  present 
judges  die  before  he  can  do  that ;  and  perhaps  his  four  years  would  be  out 
before  a  majority  of  these  judges  found  it  agreeable  to  die ;  and  it  is  very 
possible,  too,  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  senatorial  term  would  expire  before  these 
judges  would  be  accommodating  enough  to  die.  If  it  should  so  happen  ;  I 
do  not  see  a  very  great  prospect  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  reverse  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  But  suppose  they  should  die,  then  how  are  the  new  judges  to  be 
appointed  ?  Why,  the  Eepublican  President  is  to  call  upon  the  candidates 
and  catechise  them,  and  ask  them, "  How  will  you  decide  this  case  if  I  appoint 
you  judge  ? "  Suppose,  for  instance,  Mr.  Lincoln  to  be  a  candidate  for  a 
vacancy  on  the  Supreme  Bench  to  fill  Chief  Justice  Taney's  place,  and  when 
he  applied  to  Seward,  the  latter  would  say,  "  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  cannot  appoint 
you  until  I  know  how  you  will  decide  tlie  Dred  Scott  case  ? "  Mr.  Lincoln 
tells  him,  and  he  then  asks  him  how  he  will  decide  Tom  Jones's  case,  and  Bill 


62  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Wilson's  case,  and  thus  catechises  the  judge  as  to  how  he  will  decide  any  case 
which  may  arise  before  him.  Suppose  you  get  a  Supreme  Court  composed  of 
such  judges,  who  have  been  appointed  by  a  partisan  President  upon  their 
giving  pledges  how  they  would  decide  a  case  before  it  arose,  —  what  confi- 
dence would  you  have  in  such  a  court  ?  Would  not  your  court  be  prostituted 
beneath  the  contempt  of  all  mankind  ?  What  man  would  feel  that  his 
liberties  were  safe,  his  right  of  person  or  property  was  secure,  if  the  Supreme 
Bench,  that  august  tribunal,  the  highest  on  earth,  was  brought  down  to  that 
low,  dirty  pool  wherein  the  judges  are  to  give  pledges  in  advance  how  they 
will  decide  all  the  questions  which  may  be  brought  before  them  ?  It  is  a 
proposition  to  make  that  court  the  corrupt,  unscrupulous  tool  of  a  political 
party.  But  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  conscientiously  submit,  he  thinks,  to  the 
decision  of  a  court  composed  of  a  majority  of  Democrats.  If  he  cannot,  how 
can  he  expect  us  to  have  confidence  in  a  court  composed  of  a  majority  of 
Eepublicans,  selected  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  against  the  Democracy,  and 
in  favor  of  the  Eepublicans  ?  The  very  proposition  carries  with  it  the 
demoralization  and  degradation  destructive  of  the  judicial  department  of  the 
Federal  Government. 

I  say  to  you,  fellow-citizens,  that  I  have  no  warfare  to  make  upon  the 
Supreme  Court  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  I  have  no  complaints  to 
make  against  that  court  because  of  that  decision.  My  private  opinions  on 
some  points  of  the  case  may  have  been  one  way ;  and  on  other  points  of  the 
case  another ;  in  some  things  concurring  with  the  court,  and  in  others  dis- 
senting ;  but  what  have  my  private  opinions  in  a  question  of  law  to  do  with 
the  decision  after  it  has  been  pronounced  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal 
known  to  the  Constitution  ?  You,  sir  [addressing  the  chairman],  as  an 
eminent  lawyer,  have  a  right  to  entertain  your  opinions  on  any  question  that 
comes  before  the  court,  and  to  appear  before  the  tribunal  and  maintain  them 
boldly  and  with  tenacity  until  the  final  decision  shall  have  been  pronounced ; 
and  then,  sir,  whether  you  are  sustained  or  overruled,  your  duty  as  a  lawyer 
and  a  citizen  is  to  bow  in  deference  to  that  decision.  I  intend  to  yield 
obedience  to  the  decisions  of  the  highest  tribunals  in  the  land  in  all  cases, 
whether  their  opinions  are  in  conformity  with  my  views  as  a  lawyer  or  not. 
When  we  refuse  to  abide  by  judicial  decisions,  what  protection  is  there  left 
for  life  and  property  ?  To  whom  shall  you  appeal  ?  To  mob  law,  to  partisan 
caucuses,  to  town  meetings,  to  revolution  ?  Where  is  the  remedy  when  you 
refuse  obedience  to  the  constituted  authorities  ?  I  will  not  stop  to  inquire 
whether  I  agree  or  disagree  with  all  the  opinions  expressed  by  Judge  Taney 
or  any  other  judge.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  the  decision  has  been 
made.  It  has  been  made  by  a  tribunal  appointed  by  the  Constitution  to 
make  it;  it  was  a  point  within  their  jurisdiction,  and  I  am  bound  by  it. 

But,  my  friends,  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  this  Dred  Scott  decision  destroys  the 
doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty,  for  the  reason  that  the  court  has  decided  that 
Congress  had  no  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  hence  he 
infers  that  it  would  decide  that  the  Territorial  legislatures  could  not  prohibit 
slavery  there.  I  will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  the  court  will  carry  the  deci- 
sion that  far  or  not.  It  would  be  interesting  as  a  matter  of  theory,  but  of  no 
importance  in  practice ;  for  this  reason,  tliat  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want 
slavery  they  will  have  it,  and  if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  drive  it  out,  and 
you  cannot  force  it  on  them.  Slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  in  the  midst  of  an 
unfriendly  people  with  unfriendly  laws.  There  is  truth  and  wisdom  in  a 
remark  made  to  me  by  an  eminent  Southern  senator,  when  speaking  of  this 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  63 

technical  right  to  take  slaves  into  the  Territories.  Said  he,  "  I  do  not  care  a 
fig  which  way  the  decision  shall  be,  for  it  is  of  no  particular  consequence ; 
slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour  in  any  Territory  or  State  unless  it  has 
affirmative  laws  sustaining  and  supporting  it,  furnishing  police  regulations  and 
remedies  ;  and  an  omission  to  furnish  them  would  be  as  fatal  as  a  constitutional 
prohibition.  Without  affirmative  legislation  in  its  favor,  slavery  could  not 
exist  any  longer  than  a  new-born  infant  could  survive  under  the  heat  of  the 
sun,  on  a  barren  rock,  without  protection.  It  would  wilt  and  die  for  the  want 
of  support."  So  it  would  be  in  the  Territories.  See  the  illustration  in  Kansas. 
The  Kepublicans  have  told  you,  during  the  whole  history  of  that  Territory, 
down  to  last  winter,  that  the  pro-slavery  party  in  the  Legislature  had  passed  a 
pro-slavery  code,  establishing  and  sustaining  slavery  in  Kansas,  but  that  this 
pro-slavery  Legislature  did  not  truly  represent  the  people,  but  was  imposed 
upon  them  by  an  invasion  from  Missouri ;  and  hence  the  Legislature  were  one 
way,  and  the  people  another.  Granting  all  this,  and  what  has  been  the  result  ? 
With  laws  supporting  slavery,  but  the  people  against,  there  are  not  as  many 
slaves  in  Kansas  to-day  as  there  were  on  the  day  the  Nebraska  bill  passed  and 
the  Missouri  Compromise  was  repealed.  Why  ?  Simply  because  slave-owners 
knew  that  if  they  took  their  slaves  into  Kansas,  where  a  majority  of  the  people 
were  opposed  to  slavery,  that  it  would  soon  be  abolished,  and  they  would  lose 
their  right  of  property  in  consequence  of  taking  them  there.  For  that  reason 
they  would  not  take  or  keep  them  there.  If  there  had  been  a  majority  of  the 
people  in  favor  of  slavery,  and  the  climate  had  been  favorable,  they  would  have 
taken  them  there  ;  but  the  climate  not  being  suitable,  the  interest  of  the  people 
being  opposed  to  it,  and  a  majority  of  them  against  it,  the  slave-owner  did  not 
find  it  profitable  to  take  his  slaves  there,  and  consequently  there  are  not  as 
many  slaves  there  to-day  as  on  the  day  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  repealed. 
This  shows  clearly  that  if  the  people  do  not  want  slavery  they  will  keep  it  out ; 
and  if  they  do  want  it,  they  will  protect  it. 

You  have  a  good  illustration  of  this  in  the  Territorial  history  of  this  State. 
You  all  remember  that  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787  slavery  was  prohibited  in 
Illinois ;  yet  you  all  know,  particularly  you  old  settlers  who  were  here  in 
Territorial  times,  that  the  Territorial  Legislature,  in  defiance  of  that  Ordinance, 
passed  a  law  allowing  you  to  go  into  Kentucky,  buy  slaves,  and  bring  them 
into  the  Territory,  having  them  sign  indentures  to  serve  you  and  your  posterity 
ninety-nine  years,  and  their  posterity  thereafter  to  do  the  same.  This  heredi- 
tary slavery  was  introduced  in  defiance  of  the  Act  of  Congress.  That  was  the 
exercise  of  popular  sovereignty,  —  the  right  of  a  Territory  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion for  itself  in  defiance  of  the  Act  of  Congress.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
people  of  a  Territory  are  hostile  to  slavery,  they  will  drive  it  out.  Consequently, 
this  tlieoretical  question  raised  upon  the  Dred  Scott  decision  is  worthy  of  no 
consideration  whatsoever,  for  it  is  only  brought  into  these  political  discussions 
and  used  as  a  hobby  upon  which  to  ride  into  office,  or  out  of  which  to  manu- 
facture political  capital. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln's  main  objection  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  I  have  reserved 
for  my  conclusion.  His  principal  objection  to  that  decision  is  that  it  was 
intended  to  deprive  the  negro  of  the  rights  of  citizenship  in  the  different  States 
of  the  Union.  Well,  suppose  it  was,  —  and  tliere  is  no  doubt  that  that  was  its 
legal  effect,  —  what  is  his  objection  to  it  ?  Why,  he  thinks  that  a  negro  ought 
to  be  permitted  to  have  the  riglits  of  citizenship.  He  is  in  favor  of  negro  citizen- 
ship, and  opposed  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  because  it  declares  that  a  negro 
is  not  a  citizen,  and  hence  is  not  entitled  to  vote.     Here  I  have  a  direct  issue 


64  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

with  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship.  I  do  not  believe 
that  a  neoro  is  a  citizen  or  ouyht  to  be  a  citizen.  I  believe  that  this  govern- 
ment  of  ours  was  founded,  and  wisely  founded,  upon  the  white  basis.  It  was 
made  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity,  to  be 
executed  and  managed  by  white  men.  I  freely  concede  that  humanity  requires 
us  to  extend  all  the  protection,  all  the  privileges,  all  the  immunities,  to  the 
Indian  and  the  negro  which  they  are  capable  of  enjoying  consistent  with  the 
safety  of  society.  You  may  then  ask  me  what  are  those  rights,  what  is  tlie 
nature  and  extent  of  the  rights  which  a  negro  ought  to  have  ?  My  answer  is 
that  this  is  a  question  for  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  decide  for  itself. 
In  Illinois  we  have  decided  that  a  negro  is  not  a  slave,  but  we  have  at  the 
same  time  determined  that  he  is  not  a  citizen  and  shall  not  enjoy  any  political 
rights.  I  concur  in  the  wisdom  of  that  policy,  and  am  content  with  it.  I 
assert  that  the  sovereignty  of  Illinois  had  a  right  to  determine  that  question  as 
we  have  decided  it,  and  I  deny  that  any  other  State  has  a  right  to  interfere 
with  us  or  call  us  to  account  for  that  decision.  In  the  State  of  Maine  they 
have  decided  by  their  Constitution  that  the  negro  shall  exercise  the  elective 
franchise  and  hold  office  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  Whilst  I  do  not 
concur  in  the  good  sense  or  correct  taste  of  that  decision  on  the  part  of  Maine, 
I  have  no  disposition  to  quarrel  with  her.  It  is  her  business,  and  not  ours.  If 
the  people  of  Maine  desire  to  be  put  on  an  equality  with  the  negro,  I  do  not 
know  that  anybody  in  this  State  will  attempt  to  prevent  it.  If  the  white 
people  of  Maine  think  a  negro  their  equal,  and  that  he  has  a  right  to  come  and 
kill  their  vote  by  a  negro  vote,  they  have  a  right  to  think  so,  I  suppose,  and  I 
have  no  disposition  to  interfere  with  them.  Then,  again,  passing  over  to  New 
York,  we  find  in  that  State  they  have  provided  that  a  negro  may  vote, 
provided  he  holds  $250  worth  of  property,  but  that  he  shall  not  unless  he  does  ; 
that  is  to  say,  they  will  allow  a  negro  to  vote  if  he  is  rich,  but  a  poor  fellow 
they  will  not  allow  to  vote.  In  New  York  they  think  a  rich  negro  is  equal  to 
a  white  man.  Well,  that  is  a  matter  of  taste  with  them.  If  they  think  so  in 
that  State,  and  do  not  carry  the  doctrine  outside  of  it,  and  propose  to  interfere 
with  us,  I  have  no  quarrel  to  make  with  them.  It  is  their  business.-  There  is 
a  great  deal  of  philosophy  and  good  sense  in  a  saying  of  Fridley'of  Kane. 
Fridley  had  a  lawsuit  before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  and  the  justice  decided  it 
against  him.  This  he  did  not  like;  and  standing  up  and  looking  at  the  justice 
for  a  moment,  "  Well,  Square,"  said  he, "  if  a  man  chooses  to  make  a  darnation 
fool  of  himself,  I  suppose  there  is  no  law  against  it."  That  is  all  I  have  to  say 
about  these  negro  regulations  and  this  negro  voting  in  other  States  where  they 
have  systems  different  from  ours.  If  it  is  their  wish  to  have  it  so,  be  it  so. 
There  is  no  cause  to  complain.  Kentucky  has  decided  that  it  is  not  consistent 
with  her  safety  and  her  prosperity  to  allow  a  negro  to  have  either  political 
rights  or  his  freedom,  and  hence  she  makes  him  a  slave.  That  is  her  business, 
not  mine.  It  is  her  right  under  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  The  sov- 
ereignty of  Kentucky,  and  that  alone,  can  decide  that  question ;  and  when  she 
decides  it,  tliere  is  no  power  on  earth  to  which  you  can  appeal  to  reverse  it. 
Therefore,  leave  Kentucky  as  the  Constitution  has  left  her,  a  sovereign,  inde- 
pendent State,  with  the  exclusive  right  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  she  chooses  ; 
and  so  long  as  I  hold  power  I  will  maintain  and  defend  her  rights  against  any 
assaults,  from  whatever  quarter  they  may  come. 

I  will  never  stop  to  inquire  whether  I  approve  or  disapprove  of  the 
domestic  institutions  of  a  State.  I  maintain  her  sovereign  rights.  I  defend 
her  sovereignty  from  all  assault,  in  the  hope  that  she  will  join  in  defending  us 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  65 

when  we  are  assailed  by  any  outside  power.  How  are  we  to  protect  our  sov- 
ereign rights,  to  keep  slavery  out,  unless  we  protect  the  sovereign  rights  to 
every  other  State  to  decide  the  question  for  itself  ?  Let  Kentucky,  or  South 
Carolina,  or  any  other  State  attempt  to  interfere  in  Illinois,  and  tell  us  that 
we  shall  establish  slavery,  in  order  to  make  it  uniform,  according  to  Mr. 
Lincoln's  proposition,  throughout  the  Union ;  let  tliem  come  here  and  tell  us 
that  we  must  and  shall  have  slavery,  —  and  I  will  call  on  you  to  follow  me,  and 
shed  the  last  drop  of  our  heart's  blood  in  repelling  the  invasion  and  chastising 
their  insolence.  And  if  we  would  fight  for  our  reserved  rights  and  sovereign 
power  in  our  own  limits,  we  must  respect  the  sovereignty  of  each  other  State. 

Hence,  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  come  to  a  direct  issue  on 
this  whole  doctrine  of  slavery.  He  is  going  to  wage  a  war  against  it  every- 
where, not  only  in  Illinois,  but  in  his  native  State  of  Kentucky.  And  why  ? 
Because  he  says  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  contains  this  language : 
"  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that 
they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  that 
among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ; "  and  he  asks 
whether  that  instrument  does  not  declare  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 
Mr.  Lincoln  then  goes  on  to  say  that  that  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence includes  negroes.  ["  I  say  not."]  Well,  if  you  say  not,  I  do  not 
think  you  will  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln.  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  on  to  argue  that  the 
language  "  all  men  "  included  the  negroes,  Indians,  and  all  inferior  races. 

In  his  Chicago  speech  he  says,  in  so  many  words,  that  it  includes  the 
negroes,  that  they  were  endowed  by  the  Almighty  with  the  right  of  equality 
with  tlie  white  man,  and  therefore  that  that  right  is  divine,  —  a  right  under 
the  higher  law ;  that  the  law  of  God  makes  them  equal  to  the  white  man,  and 
therefore  that  the  law  of  the  white  man  cannot  deprive  them  of  that  right. 
This  is  Mr.  Lincoln's  argument.  He  is  conscientious  in  his  belief.  I  do  not 
question  his  sincerity ;  I  do  not  doubt  that  he,  in  his  conscience,  believes  that 
the  Almighty  made  the  negro  equal  to  the  white  man.  He  thinks  that  the 
negro  is  his  brother.  I  do  not  think  that  the  negro  is  any  kin  of  mine  at  all. 
And  here  is  the  difference  between  us.  I  believe  that  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  in  the  words,  "all  men  are  created  equal,"  was  intended  to 
allude  only  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  men  of  European  birth 
or  descent,  being  white  men  ;  that  they  were  created  equal,  and  hence  that 
Great  Britain  had  no  riglit  to  deprive  them  of  their  political  and  -religious 
privileges ;  but  the  signers  of  that  paper  did  not  intend  to  include  the  Indian 
or  the  negro  in  that  declaration  ;  for  if  they  had,  would  they  not  have  been 
bound  to  abolish  slavery  in  every  State  and  Colony  from  that  day  ?  Ke- 
member,  too,  that  at  the  time  the  Declaration  was  put  forth,  every  one  of  the 
thirteen  colonies  were  slaveholding  colonies ;  every  man  who  signed  that 
Declaration  represented  slaveholding  constituents.  Did  those  signers  mean 
by  that  act  to  charge  themselves  and  all  their  constituents  with  having  vio- 
lated the  law  of  God,  in  holding  the  negro  in  an  inferior  condition  to  the 
white  man  ?  And  yet,  if  they  included  negroes  in  that  term,  they  were  bound, 
as  conscientious  men,  that  day  and  that  hour,  not  only  to  have  abolished 
slavery  throughout  the  land,  but  to  have  conferred  political  rights  and  privi- 
leges on  the  negro,  and  elevated  him  to  an  equality  with  the  white  man. 
["They  did  not  do  it."]  I  know  they  did  not  do  it;  and  the  very  fact  that 
they  did  not  shows  that  they  did  not  understand  the  language  they  used  to 
include  any  but  the  white  race.  Did  they  mean  to  say  that  the  Indian,  on 
this  continent,  was  created  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  that  he  was  endowed 

9 


66  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

by  the  Almighty  with  inalienable  rights,  —  rights  so  sacred  that  they  could 
not  be  taken  away  by  any  constitution  or  law  that  man  could  pass  ?  Why, 
their  whole  action  toward  the  Indian  showed  that  they  never  dreamed  that 
they  were  bound  to  put  him  on  an  equality.  I  am  not  only  opposed  to  negro 
equality,  but  I  am  opposed  to  Indian  equality.  I  am  opposed  to  putting 
the  coolies,  now  importing  into  this  country,  on  an  equality  with  us,  or  put- 
ting the  Chinese  or  any  inferior  race  on  an  equality  with  us.  I  hold  that 
the  white  race,  the  European  race,  I  care  not  whether  Irish,  German,  French, 
Scotch,  English,  or  to  what  nation  they  belong,  so  they  are  the  white  race,  to 
be  our  equals.  And  I  am  for  placing  them,  as  our  fathers  did,  on  an  equality 
with  us.  Emigrants  from  Europe,  and  their  descendants,  constitute  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  only  included  the 
white  people  of  the  United  States.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  framed  by  the  white  people;  it  ought  to  be  administered  by  them,  leaving 
each  State  to  make  such  regulations  concerning  the  negro  as  it  chooses,  allow- 
ing him  political  rights  or  not,  as  it  chooses,  and  allowing  him  civil  rights  or 
not,  as  it  may  determine  for  itself. 

Let  us  only  carry  out  those  principles,  and  we  will  have  peace  and  harmony 
in  the  different  States.  But  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  scruples  on  this 
point  govern  his  actions,  and  I  honor  him  for  following  them,  although  I 
abhor  the  doctrine  which  he  preaches.  His  conscientious  scruples  lead  him 
to  believe  that  the  negro  is  entitled  by  divine  right  to  the  civil  and  political 
privileges  of  citizenship  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man. 

For  that  reason  he  says  he  wishes  the  Dred  Scott  decision  reversed.  He 
wishes  to  confer  those  privileges  of  citizenship  on  the  negro.  Let  us  see  how 
he  will  do  it.  He  will  first  be  called  upon  to  strike  out  of  the  Constitution  of 
Illinois  that  clause  which  prohibits  free  negroes  and  slaves  from  Kentucky  or 
any  other  State  coming  into  Illinois.  When  he  blots  out  that  clause,  when 
he  lets  down  the  door  or  opens  the  gate  for  all  the  negro  population  to  flow  in 
and  cover  our  prairies,  until  in  midday  they  will  look  dark  and  black  as  night, — 
when  he  shall  have  done  this,  his  mission  will  yet  be  unfulfilled.  Then  it 
will  be  that  he  wiU  apply  his  principles  of  negro  equality ;  that  is,  if  he  can 
get  the  Dred  Scott  decision  reversed  in  the  mean  time.  He  will  then  change 
the  Constitution  again,  and  allow  negroes  to  vote  and  hold  office,  and  will 
make  them  eligible  to  the  Legislature,  so  that  thereafter  they  can  have  the 
risht  men  for  United  States  Senators.  He  will  allow  them  to  vote  to  elect 
the  Legislature,  the  Judges,  and  the  Governor,  and  wiU  make  them  eligible  to 
the  office  of  Judge  or  Governor,  or  to  the  Legislature.  He  will  put  them  on 
an  equality  with  the  white  man.  What  then  ?  Of  course,  after  making  them 
eligible  to  the  judiciary,  when  he  gets  Cuffee  elevated  to  the  bench,  he  cer- 
tainly will  not  refuse  his  judge  the  privilege  of  mai-rying  any  woman  he  may 
select !  I  submit  to  you  whether  these  are  not  the  legitimate  consequences  of 
his  doctrine  ?  If  it  be  true,  as  he  says,  that  by  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence and  by  divine  law,  the  negro  is  created  the  equal  of  the  white  man ;  if  it 
be  true  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  is  unjust  and  wrong,  because  it  deprives 
the  negro  of  citizenship  and  equality  with  the  white  man,  —  then  does  it  not 
follow  that  if  he  had  the  power  he  would  make  negroes  citizens,  and  give  them 
all  the  rights  and  all  the  privileges  of  citizenship  on  an  equality  with  white 
men  ?  I  think  that  is  the  inevitable  conclusion.  I  do  not  doubt  Mr. 
Lincoln's  conscientious  conviction  on  the  subject,  and  I  do  not  doubt  that  he 
will  carry  out  that  doctrine  if  he  ever  has  the  power :  but  I  resist  it  because  I 
am  utterly  opposed  to  any  political  amalgamation  or  any  other  amalgamation 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  67 

on  this  continent.  We  are  witnessing  the  result  of  giving  civil  and  political 
rights  to  inferior  races  in  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  America,  and 
in  the  West  India  Islands.  Those  young  men  who  went  from  here  to  Mexico 
to  fight  the  battles  of  their  country  in  the  Mexican  war  can  tell  you  the  fruits 
of  negro  equality  with  the  white  man.  They  will  tell  you  that  the  result  of 
that  equality  is  social  amalgamation,  demoralization,  and  degradation  below 
the  capacity  for  self-government. 

My  friends,  if  we  wish  to  preserve  this  government  we  must  maintain  it 
on  the  basis  on  which  it  was  established ;  to  wit,  the  white  basis.  We  must 
preserve  the  purity  of  the  race  not  only  in  our  politics,  but  in  our  domestic 
relations.  We  must  then  preserve  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  we  must 
maintain  the  Federal  Union  by  preserving  the  Federal  Constitution  inviolate. 
Let  us  do  that,  and  oiir  Union  will  not  only  be  perpetual,  but  may  extend 
until  it  shall  spread  over  the  entire  continent. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  have  already  detained  you  too  long.  I  have  exhausted 
myself  and  wearied  you,  and  owe  you  an  apology  for  the  desultory  manner  in 
which  I  have  discussed  these  topics.  I  will  have  an  opportunity  of  address- 
ing you  again  before  the  November  election  comes  off.  I  come  to  you  to 
appeal  to  your  judgment  as  American  citizens,  to  take  your  verdict  of  ap- 
proval or  disapproval  upon  the  discharge  of  7uy  public  duty  and  my  principles 
as  compared  with  those  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  If  you  conscientiously  believe  that 
his  principles  are  more  in  harmony  with  the  feelings  of  the  American  people 
and  the  interests  and  honor  of  the  Ilepublic,  elect  him.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
you  believe  that  my  principles  are  more  consistent  with  those  great  principles 
upon  which  our  fathers  framed  this  government,  then  I  shall  ask  you  to  so 
express  your  opinion  at  the  polls.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  a  bitter  and  severe 
contest,  but  I  do  not  doubt  what  the  decision  of  the  people  of  Illinois  will  be. 
I  do  not  anticipate  any  personal  collision  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself. 
You  all  know  that  I  am  an  amiable,  good-natured  man,  and  I  take  great  pleasure 
in  bearing  testimony  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  kind-hearted,  amiable, 
good-natured  gentleman,  with  wliom  no  man  has  a  right  to  pick  a  quarrel,  even 
if  he  wanted  one.  He  is  a  worthy  gentleman.  I  have  known  him  for  twenty- 
five  years,  and  there  is  no  better  citizen  and  no  kinder-hearted  man.  He  is 
a  fine  lawyer,  possesses  high  ability,  and  there  is  no  objection  to  him,  except 
the  monstrous  revolutionary  doctrines  with  which  he  is  identified  and  which 
he  conscientiously  entertains,  and  is  determined  to  carry  out  if  he  gets  the 
power. 

He  has  one  element  of  strength  upon  which  he  relies  to  accomplish  his 
object,  and  that  is  his  alliance  with  certain  men  in  this  State  claiming  to  be 
Democrats,  whose  avowed  object  is  to  use  their  power  to  prostrate  the  Demo- 
cratic nominees.  He  hopes  he  can  secure  the  few  men  claiming  to  be  friends 
of  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  for  that  reason  you  will  find  he  does  not 
say  a  word  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution  or  its  supporters.  He  is  as 
silent  as  the  grave  upon  that  subject.  Behold  Mr.  Lincoln  courting  Lecomp- 
ton votes,  in  order  that  he  may  go  to  the  Senate  as  the  representative  of 
Eepublican  principles  !  You  know  that  that  alliance  exists.  I  think  you 
will  find  that  it  will  ooze  out  before  tlie  contest  is  over.  It  must  be  a  contest 
of  principle.  Either  the  radical  Abolition  principles  of  Mr.  Lincoln  must  be 
maintained,  or  the  strong,  constitutional,  national  Democratic  principles  with 
which  I  am  identified  must  be  carried  out.  I  shall  be  satisfied  whatever  way 
you  decide.  I  have  been  sustained  by  the  people  of  Illinois  with  a  steadi- 
ness, a  firmness,  and  an   enthusiasm  which  makes  my   heart  overflow  with 


68  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

gratitude.  If  I  was  now  to  be  consigned  to  private  life  I  would  have  nothing 
to  complain  of.  I  would  even  then  owe  you  a  debt  of  gratitude  which  the 
balance  of  my  life  could  not  repay.  But,  my  friends,  you  have  discharged 
every  obligation  you  owe  to  me.  I  have  been  a  thousand  times  paid  by  the 
welcome  you  have  extended  to  me  since  I  have  entered  the  State  on  my 
return  home  this  time.  Your  reception  not  only  discharges  all  obligations, 
but  it  furnishes  inducement  to  renewed  efforts  to  serve  you  in  the  future. 
If  you  think  Mr.  Lincoln  will  do  more  to  advance  the  interests  and  elevate 
the  character  of  Illinois  than  myself,  it  is  your  duty  to  elect  him ;  if  you 
tiiink  he  M-ould  do  more  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  country  and  perpetuate 
the  Union  than  myself,  then  elect  him.  I  leave  the  question  in  your  hands, 
and  again  tender  you  my  profound  thanks  for  the  cordial  and  heartfelt  wel- 
come tendered  to  me  this  evening. 


SPEECH   OF    HON.   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN, 

Delivered   in   Springfield,  Saturday  Evening,  July  17,  1858.     (Mr.  Douglas 

was  not  present.) 

Felloav-Citizens  :  Another  election,  which  is  deemed  an  important  one, 
is  approaching,  and,  as  I  suppose,  the  Eepublican  party  will,  without  much 
difficulty,  elect  their  State  ticket.  But  in  regard  to  the  Legislature,  we,  the 
Republicans,  labor  under  some  disadvantages.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  a 
Legislature  to  elect  upon  an  apportionment  of  the  representation  made  several 
years  ago,  when  the  proportion  of  the  population  was  far  greater  in  the  South 
(as  compared  with  the  North)  than  it  now  is  ;  and  inasmuch  as  our  opponents 
hold  almost  entire  sway  in  the  South,  and  we  a  correspondingly  large  majority 
in  the  North,  the  fact  that  we  are  now  to  be  represented  as  we  were  years 
ago,  when  the  population  was  different,  is  to  us,  a  very  great  disadvantage. 
We  had  in  the  year  1855,  according  to  law,  a  census,  or  enumeration  of  the 
inhabitants,  taken  for  the  purpose  of  a  new  apportionment  of  representation. 
We  know  what  a  fair  apportionment  of  representation  upon  that  census  would 
give  us.  We  know  that  it  could  not,  if  fairly  made,  fail  to  give  the  Bepubli- 
can  party  from  six  to  ten  more  members  of  the  Legislature  than  they  can 
probably  get  as  the  law  now  stands.  It  so  happened  at  the  last  session  of  the 
Legislature  that  our  opponents,  holding  the  control  of  botli  branches  of  the 
Legislature,  steadily  refused  to  give  us  such  an  apportionment  as  we  were 
rightly  entitled  to  have  upon  the  census  already  taken.  The  Legislature 
steadily  refused  to  give  us  such  an  apportionment  as  we  were  rightfully  en- 
titled to  have  upon  the  census  taken  of  the  population  of  the  State.  The 
Legislature  would  pass  no  bill  upon  that  subject,  except  such  as  was  at  least 
as  unfair  to  us  as  the  old  one,  and  in  which,  in  some  instances,  two  men  in 
the  Democratic  regions  were  allowed  to  go  as  far  toward  sending  a  member  to 
the  Legislature  as  three  were  in  the  Eepublican  regions.  Comparison  was 
made  at  the  time  as  to  representative  and  senatorial  districts,  which  com- 
pletely demonstrated  that  such  was  the  fact.  Such  a  bill  was  passed  and 
tendered  to  the  Eepublican  Governor  for  his  signature  ;  but  principally  for 
the  reasons  I  have  stated,  he  withheld  his  approval,  and  the  bill  feU  without 
becoming  a  law. 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  69 

Another  disadvantage  nnder  which  we  labor  is,  that  there  are  one  or  two 
Democratic  Senators  who  will  he  members  of  the  next  Legislature,  and  will 
Yote  for  the  election  of  Senator,  who  are  holding  over  in  districts  in  which  we 
could,  on  all  reasonable  calculation,  elect  men  of  our  own,  if  we  only  had  the 
chance  of  an  election.  When  w^e  consider  that  there  are  but  twenty-five 
Senators  in  the  Senate,  taking  two  from  the  side  where  they  rightfully  belong, 
and  adding  them  to  the  other,  is  to  us  a  disadvantage  not  to  be  lightly  re- 
garded. Still,  so  it  is ;  we  have  this  to  contend  with.  Perhaps  there  is  no 
ground  of  complaint  on  our  part.  In  attending  to  the  many  things  involved 
in  the  last  general  election  for  President,  Governor,  Auditor,  Treasurer,  Super- 
intendent of  Public  Instruction,  Members  of  Congress,  of  the  Legislature, 
County  Officers,  and  so  on,  we  allowed  these  things  to  happen  by  want  of 
sufficient  attention,  and  we  have  no  cause  to  complain  of  our  adversaries,  so 
far  as  this  matter  is  concerned.  But  we  have  some  cause  to  complain  of  the 
refusal  to  give  us  a  fair  apportionment. 

There  is  still  another  disadvantage  under  which  we  labor,  and  to  which  I 
will  ask  your  attention.  It  arises  out  of  the  relative  positions  of  the  two  per- 
sons who  stand  before  the  State  as  candidates  for  the  Senate.  Senator  Doug- 
las is  of  world-wide  renown.  All  the  anxious  politicians  of  his  party,  or  who 
have  been  of  his  party  for  years  past,  have  been  looking  upon  him  as  cer- 
tainly, at  no  distant  day,  to  be  the  President  of  the  United  States.  They  have 
seen  in  his  round,  jolly,  fruitful  face  post-offices,  land-offices,  marshalships, 
and  cabinet  appointments,  chargesliips  and  foreign  missions,  bursting  and 
sprouting  out  in  wonderful  exuberance,  ready  to  be  laid  hold  of  by  their  greedy 
hands.  And  as  they  have  been  gazing  upon  this  attractive  picture  so  long, 
they  cannot,  in  the  little  distraction  that  has  taken  place  in  the  party,  bring 
themselves  to  give  up  the  charming  hope ;  but  with  greedier  anxiety  they  rush 
about  him,  sustain  him,  and  give  him  marches,  triumphal  entries,  and  recep- 
tions beyond  what  even  in  the  days  of  his  highest  prosperity  they  could  have 
brought  about  in  his  favor.  On  the  contrary,  nobody  has  ever  expected  me  to 
be  President.  In  my  poor,  lean,  lank  face,  nobody  has  ever  seen  that  any  cab- 
bages were  sprouting  out.  These  are  disadvantages  all,  taken  together,  that 
the  Eepublicans  labor  under.  We  have  to  fight  this  battle  upon  principle, 
and  upon  principle  alone.  I  am,  in  a  certain  sense,  made  the  standard-bearer 
in  behalf  of  the  Eepublicans.  I  was  made  so  merely  because  there  had  to  be 
some  one  so  placed,  —  I  being  in  nowise  preferable  to  any  other  one  of  the 
twenty-five,  perhaps  a  hundred,  we  have  in  the  Eepublican  ranks.  Then  I 
say  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  and  borne  in  mind  that  we  have  to 
fight  this  battle  without  many  —  perhaps  without  any  —  of  the  external  aids 
whicli  are  brought  to  bear  against  us.  So  I  hope  those  with  whom  I  am  sur- 
rounded have  principle  enough  to  nerve  themselves  for  the  task,  and  leave 
nothing  undone  that  can  be  fairly  done  to  bring  about  the  right  result. 

After  Senator  Douglas  left  Washington,  as  his  movements  were  made 
known  by  the  public  prints,  he  tarried  a  considerable  time  in  the  city  of  New 
York  ;  and  it  was  heralded  that,  like  another  Napoleon,  he  was  lying  by  and 
framing  the  plan  of  his  campaign.  It  was  telegrai)hed  to  Washington  City, 
and  published  in  the  "  Union,"  that  he  was  framing  his  plan  for  the  purpose 
of  going  to  Illinois  to  pounce  upon  and  annihilate  the  treasonable  and  dis- 
union speech  which  Lincoln  had  made  here  on  the  16th  of  June.  Now,  I  do 
suppose  that  the  Judge  really  spent  some  time  in  New  York  maturing  the 
plan  of  the  campaign,  as  his  friends  heralded  for  him.  I  have  been  able,  by 
noting  his  movements  since  his  arrival  in  Illinois,  to  discover  evidences  con- 


70  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

firmatory  of  that  allegation.  I  tliink  I  have  been  able  to  see  what  are  the 
material  points  of  that  plan.  I  will,  for  a  little  while,  ask  your  attention  to 
some  of  them.  What  I  shall  point  out,  though  not  showing  the  whole  plan, 
are,  nevertheless,  the  main  points,  as  I  suppose. 

They  are  not  very  numerous.  The  first  is  Popular  Sovereignty.  The  sec- 
ond and  third  are  attacks  upon  my  speech  made  on  the  16th  of  June.  Out 
of  these  three  points  —  drawing  within  the  range  of  popular  sovereignty  the 
question  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  —  he  makes  his  principal  assault. 
Upon  these  his  successive  speeches  are  substantially  one  and  the  same.  On 
this  matter  of  popular  sovereignty  I  wish  to  be  a  little  careful.  Auxiliary  to 
these  main  points,  to  be  sure,  are  their  thunderings  of  cannon,  their  marching 
and  music,  their  fizzle-gigs  and  fireworks ;  but  I  will  not  waste  time  with 
them.     They  are  but  the  little  trappings  of  the  campaign. 

Coming  to  the  substance,  —  the  first  point,  —  "  popular  sovereignty."  It 
is  to  be  labelled  upon  the  cars  in  which  he  travels ;  put  upon  the  hacks  he 
rides  in ;  to  be  flaunted  upon  the  arches  he  passes  under,  and  the  banners 
which  wave  over  him.  It  is  to  be  dished  up  in  as  many  varieties  as  a  French 
cook  can  produce  soups  from  potatoes.  Now,  as  this  is  so  great  a  staple  of  the 
plan  of  the  campaign,  it  is  worth  while  to  examine  it  carefully  ;  and  if  we 
examine  only  a  very  little,  and  do  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  misled,  we  shall 
be  able  to  see  that  the  whole  thing  is  the  most  arrant  Quixotism  that  was  ever 
enacted  before  a  community.  What  is  the  matter  of  popular  sovereignty  ? 
The  first  thing,  in  order  to  understand  it,  is  to  get  a  good  definition  of  what  it 
is,  and  after  that  to  see  how  it  is  applied. 

I  suppose  almost  every  one  knows  that,  in  this  controversy,  whatever  has 
been  said  has  had  reference  to  the  question  of  negro  slavery.  We  have  not 
been  in  a  controversy  about  the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves  in 
the  ordinary  matters  of  domestic  concern  in  the  States  and  Territories.  Mr. 
Buchanan,  in  one  of  his  late  messages  (I  think  when  he  sent  up  the  Lecomp- 
ton Constitution)  urged  that  the  main  point  to  which  the  public  attention 
had  been  directed  was  not  in  regard  to  the  great  variety  of  small  domestic 
matters,  but  was  directed  to  the  question  of  negro  slavery ;  and  he  asserts  that 
if  the  people  had  had  a  fair  chance  to  vote  on  that  question,  there  was  no  rea- 
sonable ground  of  objection  in  regard  to  minor  questions.  Now,  while  I  think 
that  the  people  had  not  had  given,  or  offered  them,  a  fair  chance  upon  that 
slavery  question,  still,  if  there  had  been  a  fair  submission  to  a  vote  upon  that 
main  question,  the  President's  proposition  would  have  been  true  to  the  utter- 
most. Hence,  when  hereafter  I  speak  of  popular  sovereignty,  I  wish  to  be 
understood  as  applying  what  I  say  to  the  question  of  slavery  only,  not  to  other 
minor  domestic  matters  of  a  Territory  or  a  State. 

Does  Judge  Douglas,  when  he  says  that  several  of  the  past  years  of  his  life 
have  been  devoted  to  the  question  of  "  popular  sovereignty,"  and  that  all  the 
remainder  of  his  life  shall  be  devoted  to  it,  does  he  mean  to  say  that  he  has 
been  devoting  his  life  to  securing  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  the  right  to 
exclude  slavery  from  the  Territories  ?  If  he  means  so  to  say  he  means  to 
deceive ;  because  he  and  every  one  knows  that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  which  he  approves  and  makes  especial  ground  of  attack  upon  me  for 
disapproving,  forbids  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  exclude  slavery.  This 
covers  the  whole  ground,  from  the  settlement  of  a  Territory  till  it  reaches  the 
degree  of  maturity  entitling  it  to  form  a  State  Constitution.  So  far  as  all  that 
ground  is  concerned,  the  Judge  is  not  sustaining  popular  sovereignty,  but  abso- 
lutely opposing  it.     He  sustains  the  decision  which  declares  that  the  popular 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  71 

will  of  the  Territories  has  no  constitutional  power  to  exclude  slavery  during 
their  territorial  existence.  This  being  so,  the  period  of  time  from  the  first 
settlement  of  a  Territory  till  it  reaches  the  point  of  forming  a  State  Constitu- 
tion is  not  the  thing  that  the  Judoe  has  fought  for  or  is  fighting  for,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  he  has  fought  for,  and  is  fighting  for,  the  thing  tliat  annihilates 
and  crushes  out  that  same  popular  sovereignty. 

Well,  so  much  being  disposed  of,  what  is  left  ?  Why,  he  is  contending  for 
the  right  of  the  people,  when  they  come  to  make  a  State  Constitution,  to  make 
it  for  themselves,  and  precisely  as  best  suits  themselves.  I  say  again,  that  is 
Quixotic.  I  defy  contradiction  when  I  declare  that  the  Judge  can  find  no 
one  to  oppose  him  on  that  proposition.  I  repeat,  there  is  nobody  opposing 
that  proposition  on  principle.  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  I  know  that, 
with  reference  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  I  may  be  misunderstood ;  but 
when  you  understand  me  correctly,  my  proposition  will  be  true  and  accurate. 
Nobody  is  opposing,  or  has  opposed,  the  right  of  the  people,  when  they  form  a 
Constitution,  to  form  it  for  themselves.  Mr.  Buchanan  and  his  friends  have 
not  done  it ;  they,  too,  as  well  as  the  Eepublicans  and  the  Anti-Lecompton 
Democrats,  have  not  done  it ;  but  on  the  contrary,  they  together  have  insisted 
on  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  a  Constitution  for  themselves.  The  differ- 
ence between  the  Buchanan  men  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Douglas  men  and 
the  Eepublicans  on  the  other,  has  not  been  on  a  question  of  principle,  but  on 
a  question  of  fad. 

The  dispute  was  upon  the  question  of  fact,  whether  the  Lecompton  Consti- 
tution had  been  fairly  formed  by  the  people  or  not.  Mr.  Buchanan  and  his 
friends  have  not  contended  for  the  contrary  principle  any  more  than  the 
Douglas  men  or  the  Eepublicans.  They  have  insisted  that  whatever  of  small 
irregularities  existed  in  getting  up  the  Lecompton  Constitution  were  such  as 
happen  in  the  settlement  of  all  new  Territories.  The  question  was,  Was  it  a 
fair  emanation  of  the  people  ?  It  was  a  question  of  fact,  and  not  of  principle. 
As  to  the  principle,  all  were  agreed.  Judge  Douglas  voted  with  the  Eepubli- 
cans upon  that  matter  of  fact. 

He  and  they,  by  their  voices  and  votes,  denied  that  it  was  a  fair  emanation 
of  the  people.  The  Administration  affirmed  that  it  was.  With  respect  to  the 
evidence  bearing  upon  that  question  of  fact,  I  readily  agree  that  Judge  Douglas 
and  the  Eepublicans  had  the  right  on  their  side,  and  that  the  Administration 
was  wrong.  But  I  state  again  that,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  there  is  no  dispute 
upon  the  right  of  a  people  in  a  Territory,  merging  into  a  State,  to  form  a  Con- 
stitution for  themselves  without  outside  interference  from  any  quarter.  This 
being  so,  what  is  Judge  Douglas  going  to  spend  his  life  for  ?  Is  he  going  to 
spend  his  life  in  maintaining  a  principle  that  nobody  on  earth  opposes  ?  Does 
he  expect  to  stand  up  in  majestic  dignity,  and  go  through  his  apotheosis  and 
become  a  god,  in  the  maintaining  of  a  principle  which  neither  man  nor  mouse 
in  all  God's  creation  is  opposing  ?  Now  something  in  regard  to  the  Lecomp- 
ton Constitution  more  specially  ;  for  I  pass  from  this  other  question  of  popular 
sovereignty  as  the  most  arrant  humbug  that  has  ever  been  attempted  on  an 
intelligent  community. 

As  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  I  have  already  said  that  on  the  question 
of  fact  as  to  whether  it  was  a  fair  emanation  of  the  people  or  not.  Judge  Doug- 
las, with  the  Eepublicans  and  some  Americans,  had  gi'eatly  the  argument 
against  the  Administration  ;  and  while  I  repeat  this,  I  wish  to  know  what 
there  is  in  the  opposition  of  Judge  Douglas  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that 
entitles  him  to  be  considered  the  only  opponent  to  it,  —  as  being  par  excellence 


72  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

the  very  quintessence  of  that  opposition.  I  agree  to  the  rightfuhiess  of  his 
opposition.  He  in  the  Senate  and  his  class  of  men  there  formed  the  number 
three,  and  no  more.  In  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  his  class  of  men  —  the 
Anti-Lecompton  Democrats  —  formed  a  number  of  about  twenty.  It  took  one 
hundred  and  twenty  to  defeat  the  measure,  against  one  hundred  and  twelve. 
Of  the  votes  of  that  one  hundred  and  twenty,  Judge  Douglas's  friends  furnished 
twenty,  to  add  to  which  there  were  six  Americans  and  ninety-four  Eepubli- 
cans.  I  do  not  say  that  I  am  precisely  accurate  in  their  numbers,  but  I  am 
sufficiently  so  for  any  use  I  am  making  of  it. 

Why  is  it  that  twenty  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  credit  of  doing  that  work, 
and  the  hundred  none  of  it  ?  Why,  if,  as  Judge  Douglas  says,  the  honor  is  to 
be  divided  and  due  credit  is  to  be  given  to  other  parties,  "why  is  just  so  much 
given  as  is  consonant  with  the  wishes,  the  interests,  and  advancement  of  the 
twenty  ?  My  understanding  is,  when  a  common  job  is  done,  or  a  common 
enterprise  prosecuted,  if  I  put  in  five  dollars  to  your  one,  I  have  a  right  to 
take  out  five  dollars  to  your  one.  But  he  does  not  so  understand  it.  He  de- 
clares the  dividend  of  credit  for  defeating  Lecompton  upon  a  basis  which  seems 
unprecedented  and  incomprehensible. 

Let  us  see.  Lecompton  in  the  raw  was  defeated.  It  afterward  took  a  sort 
of  cooked-up  shape,  and  was  passed  in  the  English  bill.  It  is  said  by  the  Judge 
that  the  defeat  was  a  good  and  proper  thing.  If  it  was  a  good  thing,  why  is 
he  entitled  to  more  credit  than  others  for  the  performance  of  that  good  act, 
unless  there  was  something  in  the  antecedents  of  the  Eepublicans  that  might 
induce  every  one  to  expect  them  to  join  in  that  good  work,  and  at  the  same 
time  something  leading  them  to  doubt  that  he  would  ?  Does  he  place  his 
superior  claim  to  credit  on  the  ground  that  he  performed  a  good  act  which  was 
never  expected  of  him  ?  He  says  I  have  a  proneness  for  quoting  Scripture.  If 
I  should  do  so  now,  it  occurs  that  perhaps  he  places  himself  somewhat  upon 
the  ground  of  the  parable  of  the  lost  sheep  which  went  astray  upon  the  moun- 
tains, and  when  the  owner  of  the  hundred  sheep  found  tlie  one  that  was  lost, 
and  threw  it  upon  his  shoulders  and  came  home  rejoicing,  it  was  said  that  there 
was  more  rejoicing  over  the  one  sheep  that  was  lost  and  had  been  found,  than 
over  the  ninety  and  nine  in  the  fold.  The  application  is  made  by  the  Saviour  in 
this  parable,  thus  :  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  more  rejoicing  in  heaven 
over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  than  over  ninety  and  nine  just  persons  that 
need  no  repentance." 

And  now,  if  the  Judge  claims  the  benefit  of  this  parable,  let  him  repent. 
Let  him  not  come  up  here  and  say  :  "  I  am  the  only  just  person ;  and  you 
are  the  ninety-nine  sinners  !  "  Repentance  before  forgiveness  is  a  provision  of 
the  Christian  system,  and  on  that  condition  alone  will  the  Republicans  grant 
his  forgiveness. 

How  will  he  prove  that  we  have  ever  occupied  a  different  position  in  regard 
to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  or  any  principle  in  it  ?  He  says  he  did  not 
make  his  opposition  on  the  ground  as  to  whether  it  was  a  free  or  slave  consti- 
tution, and  he  would  have  you  understand  that  the  Eepublicans  made  their 
opposition  because  it  ultimately  became  a  slave  constitution.  To  make  proof 
in  favor  of  himself  on  this  point,  he  reminds  us  that  he  opposed  Lecompton 
before  the  vote  was  taken  declarinoj  whether  the  State  was  to  be  free  or  slave. 
But  he  forgets  to  say  that  our  Eepublican  Senator,  Trumbull,  made  a  speech 
against  Lecompton  even  before  he  did. 

Why  did  he  oppose  it  ?  Partly,  as  he  declares,  because  the  members  of 
the  Convention  who  framed  it  were  not  fairly  elected  by  the  people ;  that  the 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  73 

people  were  not  allowed  to  vote  unless  they  had  been  registered  ;  and  that  the 
people  of  whole  counties,  in  some  instances,  were  not  registered.  For  these 
reasons  he  declares  the  Constitution  was  not  an  emanation,  in  any  true  sense, 
from  the  people.  He  also  has  an  additional  objection  as  to  the  mode  of  sub- 
mitting the  Constitution  back  to  the  people.  But  bearing  on  the  question  of 
whether  the  delegates  were  fairly  elected,  a  speech  of  his,  made  something  more 
than  twelve  months  ago,  from  this  stand,  becomes  important.  It  was  made  a 
little  while  before  the  election  of  the  delegates  who  made  Lecompton.  In  that 
speech  he  declared  there  was  every  reason  to  hope  and  believe  the  election 
would  be  fair ;  and  if  any  one  failed  to  vote,  it  would  be  his  own  culpable 
fault. 

I,  a  few  days  after,  made  a  sort  of  answer  to  that  speech.  In  that  answer  I 
made,  substantially,  the  very  argument  with  which  he  combated  his  Lecompton 
adversaries  in  the  Senate  last  winter.  I  pointed  to  the  facts  that  the  people 
could  not  vote  without  being  registered,  and  that  the  time  for  registering  had 
gone  by.  I  commented  on  it  as  wonderful  that  Judge  Douglas  could  be  ignorant 
of  these  facts,  which  every  one  else  in  the  nation  so  well  knew. 

I  now  pass  from  popular  sovereignty  and  Lecompton.  I  may  have  occasion 
to  refer  to  one  or  both. 

When  he  was  preparing  his  plan  of  campaign,  Napoleon-like,  in  New  York, 
as  appears  by  two  speeches  I  have  heard  him  deliver  since  his  arrival  in  Illi- 
nois, he  gave  special  attention  to  a  speech  of  mine,  delivered  here  on  the  IGtli 
of  June  last.  He  says  that  he  carefully  read  that  speech.  He  told  us  that  at 
Chicago  a  week  ago  last  night,  and  he  repeated  it  at  Bloomington  last  night. 
Doubtless,  he  repeated  it  again  to-day,  though  I  did  not  hear  him.  In  the  two 
first  places  —  Chicago  and  Bloomington  —  I  heard  him  ;  to-day  I  did  not.  He 
said  he  had  carefully  examined  that  speech,  — tvhen,  he  did  not  say  ;  but  there 
is  no  reasonable  doubt  it  was  when  he  was  in  New  York  preparing  his  plan  of 
campaign.  I  am  glad  he  did  read  it  carefully.  He  says  it  was  evidently  pre- 
pared with  great  care.  I  freely  admit  it  was  prepared  with  care.  I  claim  not 
to  be  more  free  from  errors  than  others,  —  perhaps  scarcely  so  much;  but  I 
was  very  careful  not  to  put  anything  in  that  speech  as  a  matter  of  fact,  or  make 
any  inferences  which  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  true  and  fully  warrantable. 
If  I  had  made  any  mistake,  I  was  willing  to  be  corrected ;  if  I  had  drawn 
any  inference  in  regard  to  Judge  Douglas,  or  any  one  else,  which  was  not  war- 
ranted, I  was  fully  prepared  to  modify  it  as  soon  as  discovered.  I  planted  my- 
self upon  the  truth  and  the  truth  only,  so  far  as  I  knew  it,  or  could  be  brought 
to  know  it. 

Having  made  that  speech  with  the  most  kindly  feelings  toward  Judge  Doug- 
las, as  manifested  therein,  I  was  gratified  when  I  found  that  he  had  carefully 
examined  it,  and  had  detected  no  error  of  fact,  nor  any  inference  against  him, 
nor  any  misrepresentations  of  which  he  thought  fit  to  complain.  In  neither  of 
the  two  speeches  I  have  mentioned  did  he  make  any  such  complaint.  I  will 
thank  any  one  who  will  inform  me  that  he,  in  his  speech  to-day,  pointed  out 
anything  I  had  stated  respecting  him,  as  being  erroneous.  I  presume  there  is 
no  such  thing.  I  have  reason  to  be  gratified  that  the  care  and  caution  used 
in  that  speech  left  it  so  that  he,  most  of  all  others  interested  in  discovering 
error,  has  not  been  able  to  point  out  one  thing  against  him  which  he  could  say 
was  wrong.  He  seizes  upon  the  doctrines  he  supposes  to  be  included  in  that 
speech,  and  declares  that  upon  them  will  turn  the  issues  of  this  campaign.  He 
then  quotes,  or  attempts  to  quote,  from  my  speech.  I  will  not  say  that  he 
wilfully  misquotes,  but  he  does  fail  to  quote  accurately.     His  attempt  at  quot- 

10 


74  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

ing  is  from  a  passage  which  I  believe  I  can  quote  accurately  from  memory.  I 
shall  make  the  quotation  now,  with  some  comments  upon  it,  as  I  have  already 
said,  in  order  that  the  Judge  shall  he  left  entirely  without  excuse  for  misrep- 
resenting me.  I  do  so  now,  as  I  hope,  for  the  last  time.  I  do  this  in  great 
caution,  in  order  that  if  he  repeats  his  misrepresentation  it  shall  be  plain  to  all 
that  he  does  so  wilfully.  If,  after  all,  he  still  persists,  I  shall  be  compelled  to 
reconstruct  the  course  I  have  marked  out  for  myself,  and  draw  upon  such 
humble  resources  as  I  have,  for  a  new  course,  better  suited  to  the  real  exigen- 
cies of  the  case.  I  set  out  in  this  campaign  with  the  intention  of  conducting 
it  strictly  as  a  gentleman,  in  substance  at  least,  if  not  in  the  outside  polish. 
The  latter  I  shall  never  be  ;  but  that  which  constitutes  the  inside  of  a  gentle- 
man I  hope  I  understand,  and  am  not  less  inclined  to  practise  than  others.  It  was 
my  purpose  and  expectation  that  this  canvass  would  be  conducted  upon  prin- 
ciple, and  with  fairness  on  both  sides,  and  it  shall  not  be  my  fault  if  this  purpose 
and  expectation  shall  be  given  up. 

He  charges,  in  substance,  that  I  invite  a  war  of  sections ;  that  I  propose 
all  the  local  institutions  of  the  different  States  shall  become  consolidated  and 
uniform.  What  is  there  in  the  language  of  that  speech  ^^•hich  expresses  such 
purpose  or  bears  such  construction  ?  I  have  again  and  again  said  that  I  would 
not  enter  into  any  of  the  States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery.  Judge 
Douglas  said,  at  Bloomington,  that  I  used  language  most  able  and  ingenious 
for  concealing  what  I  really  meant :  and  that  while  I  had  protested  against 
entering  into  the  Slave  States,  I  nevertheless  did  mean  to  go  on  the  banks  of 
the  Ohio  and  throw  missiles  into  Kentucky,  to  disturb  them  in  their  domestic 
institutions. 

I  said  in  that  speech,  and  I  meant  no  more,  that  the  institution  of  slavery 
ought  to  be  placed  in  the  very  attitude  where  the  framers  of  this  government 
placed  it  and  left  it.  I  do  not  understand  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution 
left  the  people  of  the  Free  States  in  the  attitude  of  firing  bombs  or  shells  into 
the  Slave  States.  I  was  not  using  that  passage  for  the  purpose  for  which  he 
infers  I  did  use  it.     I  said :  — 

"  We  are  now  far  advanced  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  created  for  the 
avowed  object  and  with  the  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slaveiy  agita- 
tion. Under  the  operation  of  that  policy  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but 
has  constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  till  a  crisis  shall  have 
been  reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe 
that  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free  ;  it  will 
become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the 
further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that 
it  is  in  the  coui'se  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till 
it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South." 

Now  you  all  see,  from  that  quotation,  I  did  not  express  my  wish  on  any- 
thing. In  that  passage  I  indicated  no  wish  or  purpose  of  my  own  ;  I  simply 
expressed  my  expectation.  Cannot  the  Judge  perceive  a  distinction  between 
a  pujyosc  and  an  expectation  ?  I  have  often  expressed  an  expectation  to  die, 
but  I  have  never  expressed  a  wish  to  die.  I  said  at  Chicago,  and  now  repeat, 
that  I  am  quite  aware  this  government  has  endured,  half  slave  and  half  free, 
for  eighty-two  years.  I  understand  that  little  bit  of  history.  I  expressed 
the  opinion  I  did  because  I  perceived  —  or  thought  I  perceived  —  a  new  set 
of  causes  introduced.     I  did  say  at  Chicago,  in  my  speech  there,  that  I  do  wish 


AND   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  75 

to  see  the  spread  of  slavery  arrested,  and  to  see  it  placed  where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
I  said  that  because  I  supposed,  when  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  that  belief, 
we  shall  have  peace  on  the  slavery  question.  I  have  believed  —  and  now 
believe  —  the  public  mind  did  rest  on  that  belief  up  to  the  introduction  of  the 
Nebraska  bill. 

Although  I  have  ever  been  opposed  to  slavery,  so  far  I  rested  in  the  hope 
and  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  For  that  reason  it 
had  been  a  minor  question  with  me.  I  might  have  been  mistaken ;  but  I  had 
believed,  and  now  believe,  that  the  whole  public  mind,  that  is,  the  mind  of  the 
great  majority,  had  rested  in  that  belief  up  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise. But  upon  that  event  I  became  convinced  that  either  I  had  been 
resting  in  a  delusion,  or  the  institution  was  being  placed  on  a  new  basis,  —  a 
basis  for  making  it  perpetual,  national,  and  universal.  Subsequent  events  have 
greatly  confirmed  me  in  that  belief.  I  believe  that  bill  to  be  the  beginning 
of  a  conspiracy  for  that  purpose.  So  believing,  I  have  since  then  considered 
that  question  a  paramount  one.  So  believing,  I  thought  the  public  mind  will 
never  rest  till  the  power  of  Congress  to  restrict  the  spread  of  it  shall  again 
be  acknowledged  and  exercised  on  the  one  hand,  or,  on  the  other,  all  resistance 
be  entirely  crushed  out.  I  have  expressed  that  opinion,  and  I  entertain  it  to- 
night. It  is  denied  that  there  is  any  tendency  to  the  nationalization  of  slavery 
in  these  States. 

Mr.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  in  one  of  his  speeches,  when  they  were  pre- 
senting him  canes,  silver  plate,  gold  pitchers,  and  the  like,  for  assaulting  Senator 
Sumner,  distinctly  affirmed  his  opinion  that  when  this  Constitution  was  formed, 
it  was  the  belief  of  no  man  that  slavery  would  last  to  the  present  day.  He 
said,  what  I  think,  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  placed  the  institution 
of  slavery  where  the  public  mind  rested  in  the  hope  that  it  was  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction.  But  he  went  on  to  say  that  the  men  of  the  present  age, 
by  their  experience,  have  become  wiser  than  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  and 
the  invention  of  cotton  gin  had  made  the  perpetuity  of  slavery  a  necessity  i:i 
this  country. 

As  another  piece  of  evidence  tending  to  this  same  point :  Quite  recently  in 
Virginia,  a  man  —  the  owner  of  slaves  —  made  a  will  providing  that  after  his 
death  certain  of  his  slaves  should  have  their  freedom  if  they  should  so  choose, 
and  go  to  Liberia,  rather  than  remain  in  slavery.  They  chose  to  be  liberated. 
But  the  persons  to  whom  they  would  descend  as  property  claimed  them  as 
slaves.  A  suit  was  instituted,  which  finally  came  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Virginia,  and  was  therein  decided  against  the  slaves  upon  the  ground  that  a 
negro  cannot  make  a  choice ;  that  they  had  no  legal  power  to  choose,  —  could 
not  perform  the  condition  upon  which  their  freedom  depended. 

I  do  not  mention  this  with  any  purpose  of  criticising  it,  but  to  connect  it 
with  the  arguments  as  affording  additional  evidence  of  the  change  of  senti- 
ment upon  this  question  of  slavery  in  the  direction  of  making  it  perpetual  and 
national.  I  argue  now  as  I  did  before,  that  there  is  such]a  tendency  ;  and  I  am 
backed,  not  merely  by  the  facts,  but  by  the  open  confession  in  the  Slave  States. 

And  now  as  to  the  Judge's  inference  that  because  I  wish  to  see  slavery 
placed  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  —  placed  where  our  fathers  origi- 
nally placed  it,  —  I  wish  to  annihilate  the  State  Legislatures,  to  force  cotton  to 
grow  upon  the  tops  of  the  Green  IMountains,  to  freeze  ice  in  Florida,  to  cut 
lumber  on  the  broad  Illinois  prairie,  —  that  I  am  in  favor  of  all  these  ridiculous 
and  impossible  things. 


76  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  complete  answer  to  all  this  to  ask  if,  when  Congress 
did  have  the  fashion  of  restricting  slavery  from  free  territory ;  when  courts 
did  have  the  fashion  of  deciding  that  taking  a  slave  into  a  free  country 
made  him  free,  —  I  say  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  ask  if  any  of  this  ridiculous 
nonsense  about  consolidation  and  uniformity  did  actually  follow.  Who 
heard  of  any  such  thing  because  of  the  Ordinance  of  '87  ?  because  of  the 
Missouri  Restriction  ?  because  of  the  numerous  court  decisions  of  that 
character  ? 

Now,  as  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision ;  for  upon  that  he  makes  his  last  point 
at  me.     He  boldly  takes  ground  in  favor  of  that  decision. 

This  is  one  half  the  onslaught,  and  one  third  of  the  entire  plan  of  the  cam- 
paign. I  am  opposed  to  that  decision  in  a  certain  sense,  but  not  in  the  sense 
which  he  puts  on  it.  I  say  that  in  so  far  as  it  decided  in  favor  of  Dred  Scott's 
master,  and  against  Dred  Scott  and  his  family,  I  do  not  propose  to  disturb  or 
resist  the  decision. 

I  never  have  proposed  to  do  any  such  thing.  I  think  that  in  respect  for 
judicial  authority  my  humble  history  would  not  suffer  in  comparison  with 
that  of  Judge  Douglas.  He  would  have  the  citizen  conform  his  vote  to  that 
decision ;  the  member  of  Congress,  his ;  the  President,  his  use  of  the  veto 
power.  He  would  make  it  a  rule  of  political  action  for  the  people  and  all 
the  departments  of  the  government.  I  would  not.  By  resisting  it  as  a 
political  rule,  I  disturb  no  right  of  property,  create  no  disorder,  excite  no 
mobs. 

When  he  spoke  at  Chicago,  on  Friday  evening  of  last  week,  he  made  this 
same  point  upon  me.  On  Saturday  evening  I  replied,  and  reminded  him  of 
a  Supreme  Court  decision  which  he  opposed  for  at  least  several  years.  Last 
night,  at  Bloomington,  he  took  some  notice  of  that  reply,  but  entirely  forgot 
to  remember  that  part  of  it. 

He  renews  his  onslaught  upon  me,  forgetting  to  remember  that  I  have 
turned  the  tables  against  himself  on  that  very  point.  I  renew  the  effort  to 
draw  his  attention  to  it.  I  wish  to  stand  erect  before  the  country,  as  well  as 
Judge  Douglas,  on  this  question  of  judicial  authority ;  and  therefore  I  add 
something  to  the  authority  in  favor  of  my  own  position.  I  wish  to  show  that 
I  am  sustained  by  authority,  in  addition  to  that  heretofore  presented.  I  do 
not  expect  to  convince  the  Judge.  It  is  part  of  the  plan  of  his  campaign,  and 
he  will  cling  to  it  with  a  desperate  grip.  Even  turn  it  upon  him,  —  the 
sharp  point  against  him,  and  gaff  him  through,  —  he  will  still  cling  to  it  till 
he  can  invent  some  new  dodge  to  take  the  place  of  it. 

In  public  speaking  it  is  tedious  reading  from  documents ;  but  I  must  beg 
to  indulge  the  practice  to  a  limited  extent.  I  shall  read  from  a  letter  written 
by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  1820,  and  now  to  be  found  in  the  seventh  volume  of  his 
correspondence,  at  page  177.  It  seems  he  had  been  presented  by  a  gentle- 
man of  the  name  of  Jarvis  with  a  book,  or  essay,  or  periodical,  called  the 
"  Eepublicau,"  and  he  was  writing  in  acknowledgment  of  the  present,  and 
noting  some  of  its  contents.  After  expressing  the  hope  that  the  work  will 
produce  a  favorable  effect  upon  the  minds  of  the  young,  he  proceeds  to 
say:  — 

"  That  it  will  have  this  tendency  may  be  expected,  and  for  that  reason  I  feel  an 
urgency  to  note  what  I  deem  an  error  in  it,  the  more  requiring  notice  as  your 
opinion  is  strengthened  by  that  of  many  others.  You  seem,  in  page  84  and  148,  to 
consider  the  judges  as  the  ultimate  arbiters  of  all  constitutional  questions,  —  a  very 


AND   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  77 

dangerous  doctrine  indeed,  and  one  which  would  place  us  under  the  despotism  of  an 
oligarchy.  Our  judges  are  as  honest  as  other  men,  and  not  more  so.  They  have, 
■with  others,  the  same  passions  for  party,  for  power,  and  the  privilege  of  their  corps. 
Their  maxim  is,  '  Boni  judicis  est  ampliare  jurisdictionem  ; '  and  their  power  is  the 
more  dangerous  as  they  are  in  office  for  life,  and  not  responsible,  as  the  other  func- 
tionaries are,  to  the  elective  control.  The  Constitution  has  erected  no  such  single 
tribunal,  knowing  that,  to  whatever  hands  confided,  with  the  corruptions  of  time 
and  party,  its  members  would  become  despots.  It  has  more  wisely  made  all  the 
departments  co-equal  and  co-sovereign  with  themselves." 

Thus  we  see  the  power  claimed  for  the  Supreme  Court  by  Judge  Douglas, 
Mr.  Jefferson  liolds,  would  reduce  us  to  the  despotism  of  an  oligarchy. 

Now,  I  have  said  no  more  than  this,  —  in  fact,  never  quite  so  much  as 
this  ;  at  least  I  am  sustained  by  Mr.  Jefferson. 

Let  us  go  a  little  further.  You  remember  we  once  had  a  National  Bank. 
Some  one  owed  the  bank  a  debt ;  he  was  sued,  and  sought  to  avoid  payment 
on  the  ground  that  the  bank  was  unconstitutional.  The  case  went  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  therein  it  was  decided  that  the  bank  was  constitutional. 
The  whole  Democratic  party  revolted  against  that  decision.  General  Jackson 
himself  asserted  that  he,  as  President,  would  not  be  bound  to  hold  a  National 
Bank  to  be  constitutional,  even  though  the  court  had  decided  it  to  be  so.  He 
fell  in  precisely  with  the  view  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  acted  upon  it  under 
his  official  oath,  in  vetoing  a  charter  for  a  National  Bank.  The  declaration 
that  Congress  does  not  possess  this  constitutional  power  to  charter  a  bank  has 
gone  into  the  Democratic  platform,  at  their  National  Conventions,  and  was 
brought  forward  and  reaffirmed  in  their  last  Convention  at  Cincinnati.  They 
have  contended  for  that  declaration,  in  the  very  teeth  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century.  In  fact,  they  have  reduced  the  decision 
to  an  absolute  nullity.  That  decision,  I  repeat,  is  repudiated  in  the  Cincin- 
nati platform ;  and  still,  as  if  to  show  that  effrontery  can  go  no  farther,  Judge 
Douglas  vaunts  in  the  very  speeches  in  which  he  denounces  me  for  opposing 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  that  he  stands  on  the  Cincinnati  platform. 

Now,  I  wish  to  know  what  the  Judge  can  charge  upon  me,  with  respect  to 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  does  not  lie  in  all  its  length,  breadth, 
and  proportions  at  his  own  door.  The  plain  truth  is  simply  this  :  Judge 
Douglas  is  for  Supreme  Court  decisions  when  he  likes ;  and  against  them 
when  he  does  not  like  them.  He  is  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it 
tends  to  nationalize  slavery;  because  it  is  part  of  the  original  combination  for 
that  object.  It  so  happens,  singularly  enough,  that  I  never  stood  opposed  to 
a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  till  this.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  no  recol- 
lection that  he  was  ever  particularly  in  favor  of  one  till  this.  He  never  was 
in  favor  of  any,  nor  opposed  to  any,  till  the  present  one,  which  helps  to 
nationalize  slavery. 

Free  men  of  Sangamon,  free  men  of  Illinois,  free  men  everywhere,  judge 
ye  between  him  and  me  upon  this  issue. 

He  says  this  Dred  Scott  case  is  a  very  small  matter  at  most,  —  that  it  has 
no  practical  effect ;  that  at  best,  or  rather,  I  suppose,  at  worst,  it  is  but  an 
abstraction.  I  submit  that  the  proposition  that  the  thing  which  determines 
whether  a  man  is  free  or  a  slave  is  rather  concrete  than  abstract.  I  think  you 
would  conclude  that  it  was,  if  your  liberty  depended  upon  it,  and  so  would 
Judge  Douglas,  if  his  liberty  depended  upon  it.  But  suppose  it  was  on  the 
question  of  spreading  slavery  over  the  new  Territories  that  he  considers  it  as 


78  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

being  merely  an  abstract  matter,  and  one  of  no  practical  importance.  How- 
has  the  planting  of  slavery  in  new  countries  always  been  effected  ?  It  has 
now  been  decided  that  slavery  cannot  be  kept  out  of  our  new  Territories  by 
any  legal  means.  In  what  do  our  new  Territories  now  differ  in  this  respect 
from  the  old  Colonies  when  slavery  was  first  planted  within  them  ?  It  was 
planted,  as  Mr.  Clay  once  declared,  and  as  history  proves  true,  by  individual 
men,  in  spite  of  the  wishes  of  the  people ;  the  Mother  Government  refusing  to 
proliibit  it,  and  withholding  from  the  people  of  the  Colonies  the  authority  to 
prohibit  it  for  themselves.  Mr.  Clay  says  this  was  one  of  the  great  and  just 
causes  of  complaint  against  Great  Britain  by  the  Colonies,  and  the  best 
apology  we  can  now  make  for  having  the  institution  amongst  us.  In  that  pre- 
cise condition  our  Nebraska  politicians  have  at  last  succeeded  in  placing  our 
own  new  Territories  ;  the  government  will  not  prohibit  slavery  within  them, 
nor  allow  the  people  to  prohibit  it. 

I  defy  any  man  to  find  any  difference  between  the  policy  wdiich  originally 
planted  slavery  in  these  Colonies  and  that  policy  which  now  prevails  in  our 
new  Territories.  If  it  does  not  go  into  them,  it  is  only  because  no  individual 
washes  it  to  go.  The  Judge  indulged  himself  doubtless  to-day  wath  the 
question  as  to  what  I  am  going  to  do  wdth  or  about  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
Well,  Judge,  will  you  please  tell  me  what  you  did  about  the  bank  decision  ? 
Will  you  not  graciously  allow  us  to  do  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision  precisely 
as  you  did  with  the  bank  decision  ?  You  succeeded  in  breaking  down  the 
moral  effect  of  that  decision  :  did  you  find  it  necessary  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion, or  to  set  up  a  court  of  negroes  in  order  to  do  it  ? 

There  is  one  other  point.  Judge  Douglas  has  a  very  affectionate  leaning 
toward  the  Americans  and  Old  Whigs.  Last  evening,  in  a  sort  of  weeping 
tone,  he  described  to  us  a  deathbed  scene.  He  had  been  called  to  the  side  of 
Mr.  Clay,  in  his  last  moments,  in  order  that  the  genius  of  "  popular  sover- 
eignty "  might  duly  descend  from  the  dying  man  and  settle  upon  him,  the 
living  and  most  worthy  successor.  He  could  do  no  less  than  jDromise  that  he 
would  devote  the  remainder  of  his  life  to  "  popular  sovereignty ; "  and  then 
the  great  statesman  departs  in  peace.  By  this  part  of  the  "  plan  of  the  cam- 
paign "  the  Judge  has  evidently  promised  himself  that  tears  shall  be  drawn 
down  the  cheeks  of  all  Old  Whigs,  as  large  as  half-grown  apples. 

Mr.  Webster,  too,  was  mentioned ;  but  it  did  not  quite  come  to  a  deathbed 
scene  as  to  him.  It  would  be  amusing,  if  it  were  not  disgusting,  to  see  how 
quick  these  compromise-breakers  administer  on  the  political  effects  of  their 
dead  adversaries,  trumping  up  claims  never  before  heard  of,  and  dividing  the 
assets  among  themselves.  If  I  should  be  found  dead  to-morrow  morning, 
nothing  but  my  insignificance  could  prevent  a  speech  being  made  on  my  author- 
ity, before  the  end  of  next  M'eek.  It  so  happens  that  in  that  "  popular  sover- 
eignty" with  which  Mr.  Clay  was  identified,  the  Missouri  Compromise  was 
expressly  reserved ;  and  it  was  a  little  singular  if  Mr.  Clay  cast  his  mantle 
upon  Judge  Douglas  on  purpose  to  have  that  compromise  repealed. 

Again,  the  Judge  did  not  keep  faith  with  Mr.  Clay  when  he  first  brought 
in  his  Nebraska  bill.  He  left  the  Missouri  Compromise  unrepealed,  and  in  his 
report  accompanying  the  bill  he  told  the  world  he  did  it  on  purpose.  The 
manes  of  Mr.  Clay  must  have  been  in  great  agony  till  thirty  days  later,  when 
"  popular  sovereignty  "  stood  forth  in  all  its  glory. 

One  more  thing.  Last  night  Judge  Douglas  tormented  himself  with  hor- 
rors about  my  disposition  to  make  negroes  perfectly  equal  with  white  men  in 
social  and  political  relations.     He  did  not  stop  to  show  that  I  have  said  any 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  79 

such  thing,  or  that  it  legitimately  follows  from  anything  I  have  said,  but  he 
rushes  on  with  his  assertions.  I  adhere  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  are  not  willing  to  stand  by  it,  let  them  come 
up  and  amend  it.  Let  tliem  make  it  read  that  all  men  are  created  equal 
except  negroes.  Let  us  have  it  decided  whether  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, in  this  blessed  year  of  1858,  shall  be  thus  amended.  In  his  con- 
struction of  the  Declaration  last  year,  he  said  it  only  meant  that  Americans  in 
America  were  equal  to  Englishmen  in  England.  Then,  when  I  pointed  out  to 
him  that  by  that  rule  he  excludes  the  Germans,  the  Irish,  the  Portuguese, 
and  all  the  other  people  who  have  come  amongst  us  since  the  Eevolution, 
he  reconstructs  his  construction.  In  his  last  speech  he  tells  us  it  meant 
Europeans. 

I  press  him  a  little  further,  and  ask  if  it  meant  to  include  the  Russians  in 
Asia ;  or  does  he  mean  to  exclude  that  vast  population  from  the  principles  of 
our  Declaration  of  Independence  ?  I  expect  ere  long  he  will  introduce  another 
amendment  to  his  definition.  He  is  not  at  all  particular.  He  is  satisfied  with 
anything  which  does  not  endanger  the  nationalizing  of  negro  slavery.  It  may 
draw  white  men  down,  but  it  must  not  lift  negroes  up.  Who  shall  say,  "  I 
am  the  superior,  and  you  are  the  inferior  "  ? 

My  declarations  upon  this  subject  of  negro  slavery  may  be  misrepresented, 
but  cannot  be  misunderstood.  I  have  said  that  I  do  not  understand  the 
Declaration  to  mean  that  all  men  were  created  equal  in  all  respects.  They  are 
not  our  equal  in  color ;  but  I  suppose  that  it  does  mean  to  declare  that  all 
men  are  equal  in  some  respects  ;  they  are  equal  in  their  right  to  "  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  haj)piness."  Certainly  the  negro  is  not  our  equal  in  color, 
—  perhaps  not  in  many  other  respects  ;  still,  in  the  right  to  put  into  his  mouth 
the  bread  that  his  own  hands  have  earned,  he  is  the  equal  of  every  other  man, 
white  or  black.  In  pointing  out  that  more  has  been  given  you,  you  cannot 
be  justified  in  taking  away  the  little  which  has  been  given  him.  All  I  ask 
for  the  negro  is  that  if  you  do  not  like  him,  let  him  alone.  If  God  gave  him 
but  little,  that  little  let  him  enjoy. 

When  our  government  was  established  we  had  the  institution  of  slavery 
among  us.  We  were  in  a  certain  sense  compelled  to  tolerate  its  existence.  It 
was  a  sort  of  necessity.  We  had  gone  through  our  struggle  and  secured  our 
own  independence.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  found  the  institution  of 
slavery  amongst  their  other  institutions  at  the  time.  They  found  that  by  an 
effort  to  eradicate  it  they  might  lose  much  of  what  they  had  already  gained. 
They  were  obliged  to  bow  to  the  necessity.  They  gave  power  to  Congress  to 
abolish  the  slave  trade  at  the  end  of  twenty  years.  They  also  prohibited  it 
in  the  Territories  where  it  did  not  exist.  They  did  what  they  could,  and  yielded 
to  the  necessity  for  the  rest.  I  also  yield  to  all  which  follows  from  that 
necessity.  Wliat  I  would  most  desire  would  be  the  separation  of  the  white 
and  black  races. 

One  more  point  on  this  Springfield  speech  which  Judge  Douglas  says  he 
has  read  so  carefully.  I  expressed  my  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy 
to  perpetuate  and  nationalize  slavery.  I  did  not  profess  to  know  it,  nor  do  I 
now.  I  showed  the  part  Judge  Douglas  had  played  in  the  string  of  facts 
constituting  to  my  nnud  the  proof  of  that  conspiracy.  I  showed  the  parts 
played  by  others. 

I  cliarged  that  the  people  had  been  deceived  into  carrying  the  last  Presi- 
dential election,  by  the  impression  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  might 
exclude  slavery  if  they  chose,  when  it  was  known  in  advance  by  the  couspir- 


80  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

ators  that  the  court  was  to  decide  that  neither  Congress  nor  the  people  could 
so  exclude  slavery.  These  charges  are  more  distinctly  made  than  anything 
else  in  the  speech. 

Judge  Douglas  has  carefully  read  and  re-read  that  speech.  He  has  not,  so 
far  as  I  know,  contradicted  those  charges.  In  the  two  speeches  which  I  heard 
he  certainly  did  not.  On  his  own  tacit  admission,  I  renew  that  charge.  I 
charge  him  with  having  been  a  party  to  that  conspiracy  and  to  that  deception 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  nationalizing  slavery. 


The  following  is  the  correspondence  between  the  two  rival  candidates  for 
the  United  States  Senate  :  — 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

Chicago,  III.,  July  24,  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A.  Douglas  :  My  dear  Sir,  —  Will  it  be  agreeable  to  you  to  make  an 
arrangement  for  you  and  myself  to  divide  time,  and  address  the  same  audiences  the 
present  canvass  ]  Mr.  Judd,  who  will  hand  you  this,  is  authorized  to  receive  your 
answer ;  and,  if  agreeable  to  you,  to  enter  into  the  terms  of  such  arrangement. 

Your  obedient  servant,  A.  Lincoln. 


Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Chicago,  July  24,  1858. 

Hon.  A.  Lincoln  :  Dear  Sir,  —  Your  note  of  this  date,  in  Avhicb  you  inquire 
if  it  would  be  agreeable  to  me  to  make  an  arrangement  to  divide  the  time  and  address 
the  same  audiences  during  the  present  canvass,  was  handed  me  by  Mr.  Judd.  Recent 
events  have  interposed  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  an  arrangement. 

I  went  to  Springfield  last  week  for  the  purpose  of  conferring  wdth  the  Democratic 
State  Central  Committee  upon  the  mode  of  conducting  the  canvass,  and  with  them, 
and  under  their  advice,  made  a  list  of  appointments  covering  the  entire  period  until 
late  in  October.  The  people  of  the  several  localities  have  been  notified  of  the  times 
and  places  of  the  meetings.  Those  appointments  have  all  been  made  for  Democratic 
meetings,  and  arrangements  have  been  made  by  which  the  Democratic  candidates  for 
Congress,  for  the  Legislature,  and  other  offices,  will  be  present  and  address  the  people. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  these  various  candidates,  in  connection  with  myself,  will 
occupy  the  whole  time  of  the  day  and  evening,  and  leave  no  opportunity  for  other 
speeches. 

Besides,  there  is  another  consideration  which  should  be  kept  in  mind.  It  has 
been  suggested  recently  that  an  arrangement  had  been  made  to  bring  out  a  third  can- 
didate for  the  United  States  Senate,  wdio,  with  yourself,  should  canvass  the  State  in 
opposition  to  me,  with  no  other  purpose  than  to  insure  my  defeat,  by  dividing  the 
Democratic  party  for  your  benefit.  If  I  should  make  this  arrangement  with  you,  it 
is  more  than  probable  that  this  other  candidate,  who  has  a  common  object  with  you, 
would  desire  to  become  a  party  to  it,  and  claim  the  right  to  speak  from  the  same 
stand ;  so  that  he  and  you,  in  concert,  might  be  able  to  take  the  opening  and  closing 
speech  in  every  case. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  surprise,  if  it  was  your  original  intention  to 
invite  such  an  arrangement,  that  you  should  have  waited  until  after  I  had  made  my 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  81 

appointments,  inasmuch  as  we  were  botli  here  in  Chicago  together  for  several  days 
after  my  arrival,  and  again  at  Bloomington,  Atlanta,  Lincoln,  and  Springfield,  where 
it  was  well  known  I  went  for  the  purpose  of  consulting  with  the  State  Central  Com- 
mittee, and  agreeing  upon  the  plan  of  the  campaign. 

While,  under  these  circumstances,  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  make  any  arrange- 
ments which  would  deprive  the  Democratic  candidates  for  Congress,  State  offices, 
and  the  Legislature  frohi  participating  in  the  discussion  at  the  various  meetings  desig- 
nated by  the  Democratic  State  Central  Committee,  I  will,  in  order  to  accommodate 
you  as  far  as  it  is  in  my  power  to  do  so,  take  the  responsibility  of  making  an  arrange- 
ment with  you  for  a  discussion  between  us  at  one  prominent  point  in  each  Congres- 
sional District  in  the  State,  except  the  second  and  sixth  districts,  where  we  have  both 
spoken,  and  in  each  of  which  cases  you  had  the  concluding  speech.  If  agreeable  to 
you,  I  will  indicate  the  following  places  as  those  most  suitable  in  the  several  Congres- 
sional Districts  at  which  we  shoulil  speak,  to  wit  :  Freeport,  Ottawa,  Galesburg, 
Quincy,  Alton,  Jonesboro,  and  Charleston.  I  will  confer  with  you  at  the  earliest 
convenient  opportunity  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  conducting  the  debate,  the  times  of 
meeting  at  the  several  places,  subject  to  the  condition  that  where  appointments  have 
already  been  made  by  the  Democratic  State  Central  Committee  at  any  of  those  places, 
I  must  insist  upon  you  meeting  me  at  the  times  specified. 

Very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  Douglas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

Springfield,  July  29,  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A.  Douglas  :  Dear  Sir,  — Yours  of  the  24th  in  relation  to  an  arrangement 
to  divide  time,  and  address  the  same  audiences,  is  received ;  and,  in  apology  for  not 
sooner  replying,  allow  me  to  say,  tliat  when  I  sat  by  you  at  dinner  yesterday,  I  was 
not  aware  that  you  had  answered  my  note,  nor,  certainly,  that  my  own  note  had 
been  presented  to  you.  An  hour  after,  I  saw  a  copy  of  your  answer  in  the  Chicago 
"  Times,"  and  reaching  home,  I  found  the  original  awaiting  me.  Protesting  that 
your  insinuations  of  attempted  unfairness  on  my  part  are  unjust,  and  with  the  hope 
that  you  did  not  very  considerately  make  them,  I  proceed  to  reply.  To  your  state- 
ment that  ''  It  has  been  suggested,  recently,  that  an  arrangement  had  been  made  to 
bring  out  a  third  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  who,  with  yourself,  should 
canvass  the  State  in  opposition  to  me,"  etc.,  I  can  only  say,  that  such  suggestion 
must  have  been  made  by  yourself,  for  certainly  none  such  has  been  made  by  or  to 
me,  or  otherwise,  to  my  knowledge.  Surely  you  did  not  deliberately  conclude,  as  you 
insinuate,  that  I  was  expecting  to  draw  you  into  an  arrangement  of  terms,  to  be 
agreed  on  by  yourself,  by  which  a  third  candidate  and  myself,  "  in  concert,  might  be 
able  to  take  the  opening  and  closing  speech  in  every  case." 

As  to  3"our  surprise  that  I  did  not  sooner  make  the  proposal  to  divide  time  with 
you,  I  can  only  say,  I  made  it  as  soon  as  I  resolved  to  make  it.  I  did  not  know  but 
that  such  proposal  would  come  from  you  ;  I  waited,  respectfully,  to  see.  It  may 
have  been  well  known  to  you  that  you  went  to  Springfield  for  the  purpose  of  agree- 
ing on  the  plan  of  campaign;  but  it  was  not  so  known  to  me.  When  your  appoint- 
ments were  announced  in  the  papers,  extending  only  to  the  21st  of  August,  I,  for  the 
first  time  considered  it  certain  that  you  would  make  no  proposal  to  me,  and  then  resolved 
that,  if  my  friends  concurred,  I  would  make  one  to  you.  As  soon  thereafter  as  I  could 
see  and  consult  with  friends  satisfactorily,  I  did  make  the  proposal.  It  did  not  occur 
to  me  that  the  proposed  arrangement  could  derange  your  plans  after  the  latest  of  your 
appointments  already  made.  After  that,  there  was,  before  the  election,  largely  over 
two  months  of  clear  time. 

For  you  to' say  that  we  have  already  spoken  at  Chicago  and  Springfield,  and  that 
on  both  occasions  I  had  the  concluding  speech,  is  hardly  a  fair  statement.  The  truth 
rather  is  this  :  At  Chicago,  July  9tli,  you  made  a  carefully  prepared  conclusion  on  my 

11 


82 


DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 


speech  of  June  16th.  Twenty-four  hours  after,  I  made  a  hasty  conclusion  on  yours 
of  the  9th.  You  had  six  days  to  jjrepare,  and  concluded  on  me  again  at  Bloomington 
on  the  16th.  Twenty-four  hours  after,  I  concluded  again  on  you  at  Springfield.  In  the 
mean  time,  you  had  made  another  conclusion  on  meat  Springfield,  which  I  did  not  hear, 
and  of  the  contents  of  which  I  knew  nothing  when  I  spoke  ;  so  that  your  speech  made 
in  daylight,  and  mine  at  night,  of  the  17th,  at  Spring^eld,  were  both  made  in  perfect 
independence  of  each  other.  The  dates  of  making  all  these  speeches  will  show,  I 
think,  that  in  the  matter  of  time  for  preparation,  the  advantage  has  all  been  on  your 
side,  and  that  none  of  the  external  circumstances  have  stood  to  my  advantage. 

I  agree  to  an  arrangement  for  us  to  speak  at  the  seven  places  you  have  named,  and 
at  your  own  times,  provided  you  name  the  times  at  once,  so  that  I,  as  well  as  you, 
can  have  to  myself  the  time  not  covered  by  the  arrangement.  As  to  the  other  details, 
I  wish  perfect  reciprocity  and  no  more.  I  wish  as  much  time  as  you,  and  that  con- 
clusions shall  alternate.     That  is  all. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.    LiNCOLX. 

P.  S.  —  As  matters  now  stand,  I  shall  be  at  no  more  of  your  exclusive  meetings  ; 
and  for  about  a  week  from  to-day  a  letter  from  you  wiU  reach  me  at  Springfield. 

A.  L. 

Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Bement,  Piatt  Co.,  III.,  July  30,  1858. 

Dear  Sir,  —  Your  letter  dated  yesterday,  accepting  my  proposition  for  a  joint  dis- 
cussion at  one  prominent  point  in  each  Congressional  District,  as  stated  in  my  previ- 
ous letter,  was  received  this  morning. 

The  times  and  places  designated  are  as  follows  :  — 

Ottawa,  La  Salle  County  . 
Freeport,  Stephenson  County 
Jonesboro,  Union  County  . 
Charleston,  Coles  County  . 
Galesburgh,  Knox  County 
Quincy,  Adams  County 
Alton,  Madison  County 

I  agree  to  your  suggestion  that  we  shall  alternately  open  and  close  the  discussion. 
I  will  speak  at  Ottawa  one  hour,  you  can  reply,  occupying  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  I 
wiU  then  follow  for  half  an  hour.  At  Freeport,  you  shall  open  the  discussion  and 
speak  one  hour ;  I  wiU  follow  for  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  you  can  then  reply  for  half 
an  hour.     We  will  alternate  in  like  manner  in  each  successive  place. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

S.  A.  Douglas. 
Hon.  A  Lincoln,  Springfield,  lU. 


August         21st, 

1858 

"               27th, 

September  15th, 

"            18th, 

October         Tth, 

13th, 

"             15th, 

Mr.  Lincoln  to  Mr.  Douglas. 

Springfield,  July  31,  1858. 

Hon.  S.  A.  Douglas  :  Dear  Sir, —  Yours  of  yesterday,  naming  places,  times,  and 
terms,  for  joint  discussions  between  us,  was  received  this  morning.  Although,  by  the 
terms,  as  you  propose,  you  take  four  openings  and  closes,  to  my  three,  I  accede,  and 
thus  close  the  arrangement.  I  direct  this  to  you  at  Hillsboro,  and  shall  try  to  have 
both  your  letter  and  this  appear  in  the  "  Journal "  and  "  Register  "  of  Monday  morning. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  Lincoln. 


AND   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  83 

FIRST   JOINT  DEBATE,   AT   OTTAWA, 

August  21,  1858. 

MR.   DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  I  appear  before  you  to-day  for  the  purpose  of 
discussing  the  leading  political  topics  which  now  agitate  the  public  mind. 
By  an  arrangement  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  we  are  present  here  to- 
day for  the  purpose  of  having  a  joint  discussion,  as  the  representatives  of  the 
two  great  political  parties  of  the  State  and  Union,  upon  the  principles  in  issue 
between  those  parties  ;  and  this  vast  concourse  of  people  shows  the  deep  feel- 
ing which  pervades  the  public  mind  in  regard  to  the  questions  dividing  us. 

Prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great  political  parties, 
known  as  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties.  Both  were  national  and  patri- 
otic, advocating  principles  that  were  universal  in  their  application.  An  old 
line  Whig  could  proclaim  his  principles  in  Louisiana  and  Massachusetts  alike. 
Whig  principles  had  no  boundary  sectional  line ;  they  were  not  limited  by  the 
Ohio  River,  nor  by  the  Potomac,  nor  by  the  line  of  the  Free  and  Slave  States, 
but  applied  and  were  proclaimed  wherever  the  Constitution  ruled  or  the 
American  flag  waved  over  the  American  soil.  So  it  was,  and  so  it  is  with  the 
great  Democratic  party,  which,  from  the  days  of  Jefferson  until  this  period, 
has  proven  itself  to  be  the  historic  party  of  this  nation.  While  the  Whig  and 
Democratic  parties  differed  in  regard  to  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the 
specie  circular,  and  the  sub-treasury,  they  agreed  on  the  great  slavery  ^question 
which  now  agitates  the  Union.  I  say  that  the  Whig  party  and  the  Demo- 
cratic party  agreed  on  this  slavery  question,  while  they  differed  on  those 
matters  of  expediency  to  which  I  have  referred.  The  Whig  party  and  the 
Democratic  party  jointly  adopted  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  as  the 
basis  of  a  proper  and  just  solution  of  this  slavery  question  in  all  its  forms. 
Clay  was  the  great  leader,  with  Webster  on  his  right  and  Cass  on  his  left,  and 
sustained  by  tlie  patriots  in  the  Whig  and  Democratic  ranks  who  had  devised 
and  enacted  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850. 

In  1851  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  united  in  Illinois  in 
adopting  resolutions  indorsing  and  approving  the  principles  of  the  Compro- 
mise measures  of  1850,  as  the  proper  adjustment  of  that  question.  In  1852, 
when  the  Whig  party  assembled  in  Convention  at  Baltimore  for  the  purpose 
of  nominating  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  the  first  thing  it  did  was  to 
declare  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  in  substance  and  in  principle,  a 
suitable  adjustment  of  that  question.  [Here  the  speaker  was  interrupted  by 
loud  and  long-continued  applause.]  My  friends,  silence  will  be  more  accept- 
able to  me  in  the  discussion  of  these  questions  than  applause.  I  desire  to 
address  myself  to  your  judgment,  your  understanding,  and  your  consciences, 
and  not  to  your  passions  or  your  enthusiasm.  When  the  Democratic  Conven- 
tion assembled  in  Baltimore  in  the  same  year,  for  the  purpose  of  nominating 
a  Democratic  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  it  also  adopted  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850  as  the  basis  of  Democratic  action.  Thus  you  see  that  up 
to  1853-54,  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  both  stood  on  the  same 
platform  with  regard  to  the  slavery  question.  That  platform  was  the  right  of 
the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  decide  their  local  and  domestic 
institutions  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 


84  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

During  the  session  of  Congress  of  1853-54,1  introduced  into  the  Senate  oi 
the  United  States  a  bill  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  on 
that  principle  which  had  been  adopted  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850, 
approved  by  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  in  Illinois  in  1851, 
and  indorsed  by  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  in  National  Con- 
vention in  1852.  In  order  that  there  might  be  no  misunderstanding  in  rela- 
tion to  the  p)rinciple  involved  in  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  I  put  forth  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Act  in  these  words  :  "  It  is  the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  this  Act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  or  to 
exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Federal  Constitution."  Thus  you  see  that  up  to  1854,  when  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  was  brought  into  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the 
principles  which  both  parties  had  up  to  that  time  indorsed  and  approved, 
there  had  been  no  division  in  this  country  in  regard  to  that  principle  except 
the  opposition  of  the  Abolitionists.  In  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  of  the 
Illinois  Legislature,  upon  a  resolution  asserting  that  principle,  every  Whig 
and  every  Democrat  in  the  House  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  only  four  men 
voted  against  it,  and  those  four  were  old  line  Abolitionists. 

In  1854,  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull  entered  into  an  arranfje- 
ment,  one  with  the  other,  and  each  with  his  respective  friends,  to  dissolve  the 
old  Whig  party  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  dissolve  the  old  Democratic  party  on 
the  other,  and  to  connect  the  members  of  both  into  an  Abolition  party,  under 
the  name  and  disguise  of  a  Eepublican  party.  The  terms  of  that  arrangement 
between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull  have  been  published  to  the  world  by 
Mr.  Lincoln's  special  friend,  James  H.  Matheny,  Esq.,  and  they  were,  that 
Lincoln  should  have  Shields's  place  in  the  United  States  Senate,  which  was 
then  about  to  become  vacant,  and  that  Trumbull  should  have  my  seat  when 
my  term  exjjired.  Lincoln  went  to  work  to  Abolitionize  tlie  old  Whig  party 
all  over  the  State,  pretending  that  he  was  then  as  good  a  Whig  as  ever ;  and 
Trumbull  went  to  work  in  his  part  of  the  State  preaching  Abolitionism  in  its 
milder  and  lighter  form,  and  trying  to  Abolitionize  the  Democratic  party,  and 
bring  old  Democrats  handcuffed  and  bound  hand  and  foot  into  the  Abolition 
camp.  In  pursuance  of  the  arrangement,  the  parties  met  at  Springfield  in 
October,  1854,  and  proclaimed  their  new  platform.  Lincoln  was  to  bring  into 
the  Abolition  camp  the  old  line  Whigs,  and  transfer  them  over  to  Giddings, 
Chase,  Fred  Douglass,  and  Parson  Lovejoy,  who  were  ready  to  receive  them 
and  christen  them  in  their  new  faith.  They  laid  down  on  that  occasion  a 
platform  for  their  new  Eepublican  party,  which  was  to  be  thus  constructed. 
I  have  the  resolutions  of  their  State  Convention  then  held,  which  was  the 
first  mass  State  Convention  ever  held  in  Illinois  by  the  Black  Eepublican 
party,  and  I  now  hold  them  in  my  hands,  and  will  read  a  part  of  them,  and 
cause  the  others  to  be  printed.  Here  are  the  most  important  and  material 
resolutions  of  this  Abolition  platform  :  — 

'*  1.  Resolved,  That  we  believe  this  truth  to  be  self-evident,  that  when  parties 
become  subversive  of  the  ends  for  which  they  are  established,  or  incapable  of  restor- 
ing the  government  to  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution,  it  is  the  right  and 
duty  of  the  people  to  dissolve  the  political  bands  by  which  they  may  have  been  con- 
nected therewith,  and  to  organize  new  parties,  upon  such  principles  and  with  such 
views  as  the  circumstances  and  exigencies  of  the  nation  may  demand. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  the  times  imperatively  demand  the  reorganization  of  parties, 
and,  repudiating  all  previous  party  attachments,  names,  and  predilections,  we  unite 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  85 

ourselves  tegether  in  defence  of  the  libert)^  and  Constitution  of  the  country,  and  will 
hereafter  co-operate  as  the  liepublican  party,  pledged  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
following  purposes  :  To  bring  the  administration  of  the  government  back  to  the 
control  of  first  principles  ;  to  restore  Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  the  position  of  free  Ter- 
ritories ;  that,  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  vests  in  the  States,  and  not  in 
Congress,  the  power  to  legislate  for  the  extradition  of  fugitives  from  labor,  to  repeal 
and  entirely  abrogate  the  Fugitive  Slave  law ;  to  restrict  slavery  to  those  States  in 
which  it  exists  ;  to  prohibit  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union  ; 
to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Terri- 
tories over  which  the  General  Government  has  exclusive  jurisdiction  ;  and  to  resist  the 
acquirement  of  any  more  Territories,  unless  the  practice  of  slavery  therein  forever 
shall  have  been  prohibited. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  in  furtherance  of  these  principles  we  will  use  such  Constitu- 
tional and  lawful  means  as  shall  seem  best  adapted  to  their  accomplishment,  and  that 
we  will  support  no  man  for  office,  under  the  General  or  State  Government,  who  is 
not  positively  and  fully  committed  to  the  support  of  these  principles,  and  whose 
personal  character  and  conduct  is  not  a  guarantee  that  he  is  reliable,  and  who  shall 
not  have  abjured  old  jjarty  allegiance  and  ties." 

Now,  gentlemen,  your  Black  Eepublicans  have  cheered  every  one  of  those 
propositions,  and  yet  I  venture  to  say  that  you  cannot  get  ]\Ir.  Lincoln  to 
come  out  and  say  that  lie  is  now  in  favor  of  each  one  of  them.  That  these 
propositions,  one  and  all,  constitute  the  platform  of  the  Black  Eepublican 
party  of  this  day,  I  have  no  doubt ;  and  when  you  were  not  aware  for  what 
purpose  I  was  reading  them,  your  Black  Republicans  cheered  them  as  good 
Black  Republican  doctrines.  My  object  in  reading  these  resolutions  was  to 
put  the  question  to  Abraham  Lincoln  this  day,  whether  he  now  stands  and 
will  stand  by  each  article  in  that  creed  and  carry  it  out.  I  desire  to  know 
whether  Mr.  Lincoln  to-day  stands,  as  he  did  in  1854,  in  favor  of  the  uncon- 
ditional repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he 
stands  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did  in  1854,  against  the  admission  of  any  more 
Slave  States  into  the  Union,  even  if  the  people  want  them.  I  want  to  know 
whether  he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the 
Union  with  such  a  Constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to 
make.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he 
stands  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade  between  the  different 
States.  I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  North  as  w^ell  as  South  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line.  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed  to  the 
acquisition  of  any  more  territory,  unless  slavery  is  prohibited  therein.  I  want 
his  answer  to  these  questions.  Your  affirmative  cheers  in  favor  of  this  Aboli- 
tion platform  is  not  satisfactory.  I  ask  Abraham  Lincoln  to  answer  these 
questions,  in  order  that,  when  I  trot  him  down  to  lower  Egypt,  I  may  put  the 
same  questions  to  him.  My  principles  are  the  same  everywhere.  I  can  pro- 
claim them  alike  in  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  and  the  West.  My  prin- 
ciples will  apply  wherever  the  Constitution  prevails,  and  the  American  flag 
waves.  I  desire  to  know  -whether  Air.  Lincoln's  principles  will  bear  trans- 
planting from  Ottawa  to  Jonesboro  ?  I  put  these  questions  to  him  to-day 
distinctly,  and  ask  an  answer.  I  have  a  right  to  an  answer,  for  I  quote  from 
the  platform  of  the  Republican  party,  made  by  himself  and  others  at  the  time 
that  party  was  formed,  and  the  bargain  made  by  Lincoln  to  dissolve  and  kill 
the  old  Whig  party,  and  transfer  its  members,  bound  hand  and  foot,  to  the 


86  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Abolition  party,  under  the  direction  of  Giddings  and  Fred  Douglass.  In  the 
remarks  I  have  made  on  this  platform,  and  the  position  of  Mr.  Lincoln  upon 
it,  I  mean  nothing  personally  disrespectful  or  unkind  to  that  gentleman.  I 
have  known  him  for  nearly  twenty-five  years.  There  were  many  points  of 
sympathy  between  us  when  we  first  got  acquainted.  We  were  both  compara- 
tively boys,  and  both  struggling  with  poverty  in  a  strange  land.  I  was  a 
school-teacher  in  the  town  of  Winchester,  and  he  a  flourishing  grocery-keeper 
in  the  town  of  Salem.  He  was  more  successful  in  his  occupation  than  I  was 
in  mine,  and  hence  more  fortunate  in  this  world's  goods.  Lincoln  is  one  of 
those  peculiar  men  who  perform  with  admirable  skill  everything  whicli  they 
undertake.  I  made  as  good  a  school-teacher  as  I  could,  and  when  a  cabinet- 
maker I  made  a  good  bedstead  and  tables,  although  my  old  boss  said  I  suc- 
ceeded better  with  bureaus  and  secretaries  than  with  anything  else ;  but  I 
believe  that  Lincoln  was  always  more  successful  in  business  than  I,  for  his 
business  enabled  him  to  get  into  the  Legislature.  I  met  him  there,  however, 
and  had  a  sympathy  with  him,  because  of  the  up-hill  struggle  we  both  had  in 
life.  He  was  then  just  as  good  at  telling  an  anecdote  as  now.  He  could  beat 
any  of  the  boys  wrestling,  or  running  a  foot-race,  in  pitching  quoits  or  tossing 
a  copper ;  could  ruin  more  liquor  than  all  the  boys  of  the  town  together ;  and 
the  dignity  and  impartiality  with  which  he  presided  at  a  horse-race  or  fist- 
fight  excited  the  admiration  and  won  the  praise  of  everybody  that  was  present 
and  participated.  I  sympathized  with  him  because  he  was  struggling  with 
difficulties,  and  so  was  I.  Mr.  Lincoln  served  with  me  in  the  Legislature  in 
1836,  when  we  both  retired,  and  he  subsided,  or  became  submerged,  and  he 
was  lost  sight  of  as  a  public  man  for  some  years.  In  1846,  when  Wilmot 
introduced  his  celebrated  proviso,  and  the  Abolition  tornado  swept  over  the 
country,  Lincoln  again  turned  up  as  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  Sanga- 
mon district.  I  was  then  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  was  glad 
to  welcome  my  old  friend  and  companion.  Whilst  in  Congress,  he  distin- 
guished himself  by  his  opposition  to  the  Mexican  war,  taking  the  side  of  the 
common  enemy  against  his  own  country ;  and  when  he  returned  home  he 
found  that  the  indignation  of  the  people  followed  him  everywhere,  and  he  was 
again  submerged,  or  obliged  to  retire  into  private  life,  forgotten  by  his  former 
friends.  He  came  up  again  in  1854,  just  in  time  to  make  this  Abolition  or 
Black  Republican  platform,  in  company  with  Giddings,  Lovejoy,  Chase,  and 
Fred  Douglass,  for  the  Eepublican  party  to  stand  upon.  Trumbull,  too,  was  one 
of  our  own  contemporaries.  He  was  born  and  raised  in  old  Connecticut,  was 
bred  a  Federalist,  but,  removing  to  Georgia,  turned  Nullifier  when  Nullification 
was  popular,  and  as  soon  as  he  disposed  of  his  clocks  and  wound  up  his  business, 
migrated  to  Illinois,  turned  politician  and  lawyer  here,  and  made  his  appear- 
ance in  1841  as  a  member  of  the  Legislature.  He  became  noted  as  the  autlior 
of  the  scheme  to  repudiate  a  large  portion  of  the  State  debt  of  Illinois,  which, 
if  successful,  would  have  brought  infamy  and  disgrace  upon  the  fair  escutcheon 
of  our  glorious  State.  The  odium  attached  to  that  measure  consigned  him  to 
oblivion  for  a  time.  I  helped  to  do  it.  I  walked  into  a  public  meeting  in 
the  hall  of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  and  replied  to  his  repudiating 
speeches,  and  resolutions  were  carried  over  his  head  denouncing  repudiation, 
and  asserting  the  moral  and  legal  obligation  of  Illinois  to  pay  every  dollar  of 
the  debt  she  owed,  and  every  bond  that  bore  her  seal.  Trumbull's  malignity 
has  followed  me  since  I  thus  defeated  his  infamous  scheme. 

These  two  men  having  formed  this  combination  to  Abolitionize  the  old  Whig 
party  and  the  old  Democratic  party,  and  put  themselves  into  the  Senate  of 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  87 

the  United  States,  in  pursuance  of  their  bargain,  are  now  carrying  out  that 
arrangement.  Matheny  states  that  Trumbull  broke  faith ;  that  the  bargain 
was  that  Lincoln  should  be  the  Senator  in  Shields's  place,  and  Trumbull  was 
to  wait  for  mine ;  and  the  story  goes  that  Trumbull  cheated  Lincoln,  having 
control  of  four  or  five  Abolitionized  Democrats  who  were  holding  over  in  the 
Senate ;  he  would  not  let  them  vote  for  Lincoln,  and  which  obliged  the  rest 
of  the  Abolitionists  to  support  him  in  order  to  secure  an  Abolition  Senator. 
There  are  a  number  of  authorities  for  the  truth  of  this  besides  Matheny,  and 
I  suppose  that  even  Mr.  J^incoln  will  not  deny  it. 

Mr.  Lincoln  demands  that  he  shall  have  the  place  intended  for  Trumbull, 
as  Trumbull  cheated  him  and  got  his,  and  Trumbull  is  stumping  the  State 
traducing  me  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  position  for  Lincoln,  in  order  to 
quiet  him.  It  was  in  consequence  of  this  arrangement  that  the  Eepublican 
Convention  was  empanelled  to  instruct  for  Lincoln  and  nobody  else,  and  it 
was  on  this  account  that  tliey  passed  resolutions  that  he  was  their  first,  their 
last,  and  their  only  choice.  Archy  Williams  was  nowhere.  Browning  was 
nobody,  Wentworth  was  not  to  be  considered  ;  they  had  no  man  in  the  Eepub- 
lican party  for  the  place  except  Lincoln,  for  the  reason  that  he  demanded  that 
they  should  carry  out  the  arrangement. 

Having  formed  this  new  party  for  the  benefit  of  deserters  from  Whiggery, 
and  deserters  from  Democracy,  and  having  laid  down  the  Abolition  platform 
which  I  have  read,  Lincoln  now  takes  his  stand  and  proclaims  his  Abolition 
doctrines.  Let  me  read  a  part  of  them.  In  his  speech  at  Springfield  to  the 
Convention  which  nominated  him  for  the  Senate,  he  said :  — 

"  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and 
passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government 
cannot  endure  'permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to 
be  dissolved,  — I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall ;  hut  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  he 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of 
slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will 
push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  laivful  in  all  the  States,  —  old  as  well  as 
new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

["  Good,"  "  good,"  and  cheers.] 

I  am  delighted  to  hear  you  Black  Eepublicans  say  "good."  I  have  no 
doubt  that  doctrine  expresses  your  sentiments,  and  I  will  prove  to  you 
now,  if  you  will  listen  to  me,  that  it  is  revolutionary,  and  destructive  of  the 
existence  of  this  government.  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  the  extract  from  which  I  have 
read,  says  that  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  in  the  same  con- 
dition in  which  it  was  made  by  its  framers,  —  divided  into  Free  and  Slave 
States.  He  says  that  it  has  existed  for  about  seventy  years  thus  divided,  and 
yet  he  tells  you  that  it  cannot  endure  permanently  on  the  same  principles  and 
in  the  same  relative  condition  in  which  our  fathers  made  it.  Why  can  it  not 
exist  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States  ?  Washington,  Jefferson,  Franklin, 
Madison,  Hamilton,  Jay,  and  the  great  men  of  that  day,  made  this  govern- 
ment divided  into  Free  States  and  Slave  States,  and  left  each  State  perfectly 
free  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Why  can  it  not  exist  on 
the  same  principles  on  which  our  fathers  made  it  ?  They  knew  when  they 
framed  the  Constitution  that  in  a  country  as  wide  and  broad  as  this,  with 
such  a  variety  of  climate,  production,  and  interest,  the  people  necessarily 
required  different  laws  and  institutions  in  different  localities.     They  knew 


88  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

that  the  laws  and  regulations  which  would  suit  the  granite  hills  of  New 
Hampshire  would  be  unsuited  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina,  and 
they  therefore  provided  that  each  State  should  retain  its  own  Legislature  and 
its  own  sovereignty,  with  the  full  and  complete  power  to  do  as  it  pleased  within 
its  own  limits,  in  all  that  was  local  and  not  national.  One  of  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States  was  the  right  to  regulate  the  relations  between  master 
and  servant,  on  the  slavery  question.  At  the  time  the  Constitution  was 
framed,  there  were  thirteen  States  in  the  Union,  twelve  of  which  were  slave- 
holding  States  and  one  a  Free  State,  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  uniformity 
preached  by  Mv.  Lincoln,  that  the  States  should  all  be  free  or  all  be  slave  had 
prevailed,  and  what  would  have  been  the  result  ?  Of  course,  the  twelve 
slaveholding  States  would  have  overruled  the  one  Free  State,  and  slavery 
would  have  been  fastened  by  a  Constitutional  provision  on  every  inch  of  the 
American  Kepublic,  instead  of  being  left,  as  our  fathers  wisely  left  it,  to  each 
State  to  decide  for  itself.  Here  I  assert  that  uniformity  in  the  local  laws 
and  institutions  of  the  different  States  is  neither  possible  or  desirable.  If 
uniformity  had  been  adopted  when  the  government  was  established,  it  must 
inevitably  have  been  the  uniformity  of  slavery  everywhere,  or  else  the  uni- 
formity of  negro  citizenship  and  negro  equality  everywhere. 

We  are  told  by  Lincoln  that  he  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  and  will  not  submit  to  it,  for  the  reason  that  he  says  it  deprives  the 
negro  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship.  That  is  the  first  and  main 
reason  which  he  assigns  for  his  warfare  on  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  and  its  decision.  I  ask  you,  are  you  in  favor  of  conferring  upon  the 
negro  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  ?  Do  you  desire  to  strike  out  of 
our  State  Constitution  that  clause  which  keeps  slaves  and  free  negroes  out  of 
the  State,  and  allow  the  free  negroes  to  flow  in,  and  cover  your  prairies  with 
black  settlements  ?  Do  you  desire  to  turn  this  beautiful  State  into  a  free 
negro  colony,  in  order  that  when  Missouri  abolishes  slavery  she  can  send  one 
hundred  thousand  emancipated  slaves  into  Illinois,  to  become  citizens  and 
voters,  on  an  equality  with  yourselves  ?  If  you  desire  negro  citizenship,  if 
you  desire  to  allow  them  to  come  into  the  State  and  settle  with  the  white 
man,  if  you  desire  them  to  vote  on  an  equality  with  yourselves,  and'  to  make 
them  eligible  to  office,  to  serve  on  juries,  and  to  adjudge  your  rights,  then 
support  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Black  Eepublican  party,  who  are  in  favor  of 
the  citizenship  of  the  negro.  For  one,  I  am  opposed  to  negro  citizenship  in 
any  and  every  form.  I  believe  this  government  was  made  on  the  white  basis. 
I  believe  it  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their 
posterity  forever,  and  I  am  in  favor  of  confining  citizenship  to  white  men, 
men  of  European  birth  and  descent,  instead  of  conferring  it  upon  negroes, 
Indians,  and  other  inferior  races. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  following  the  example  and  lead  of  all  the  little  Abolition 
orators,  who  go  around  and  lecture  in  the  basements  of  schools  and  churches, 
reads  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence  that  all  men  were  created  equal, 
and  then  asks.  How  can  you  deprive  a  negro  of  that  equality  which  God  and 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  awards  to  him  ?  He  and  they  maintain  that 
negro  equality  is  guaranteed  by  the  laws  of  God,  and  that  it  is  asserted  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  If  they  think  so,  of  course  they  have  a  right  to 
say  so,  and  so  vote.  I  do  not  question  Mr.  Lincoln's  conscientious  belief  that 
the  negro  was  made  his  equal,  and  hence  is  his  brother ;  but  for  my  own  part, 
I  do  not  regard  the  negro  as  my  equal,  and  positively  deny  that  he  is  my 
brother,  or  any  kin  to  me  whatever.     Lincoln  has  evidently  learned  by  heart 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  89 

Parson  Lovejoy's  catechism.  He  can  repeat  it  as  well  as  Farnsworth,  and  he 
is  worthy  of  a  medal  from  Father  Giddings  and  Fred  Douglass  for  his  Aboli- 
tionism. He  holds  that  the  negro  was  born  his  equal  and  yours,  and  that  he 
was  endowed  with  equality  by  the  Almighty,  and  that  no  human  law  can 
deprive  him  of  these  rights,  which  were  guaranteed  to  him  by  the  Supreme 
Euler  of  the  Universe.  Now  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Almighty  ever  intended 
the  negro  to  be  the  equal  of  the  white  man.  If  he  did,  he  has  been  a  long 
time  demonstrating  the  fact.  For  thousands  of  years  the  negro  has  been  a 
race  upon  the  earth,  and  during  all  that  time,  in  all  latitudes  and  climates, 
wherever  he  has  wandered  or  been  taken,  he  has  been  inferior  to  the  race 
wliich  he  has  there  met.  He  belongs  to  an  inferior  race,  and  must  always 
occupy  an  inferior  position.  I  do  not  hold  that  because  the  negro  is  our 
inferior  that  therefore  he  ought  to  be  a  slave.  By  no  means  can  such  a  con- 
clusion be  drawn  from  what  I  have  said.  On  the  contrary,  I  hold  that 
humanity  and  Christianity  both  require  that  the  negro  shall  have  and  enjoy 
every  right,  every  privilege,  and  every  immunity  consistent  with  the  safety 
of  the  society  in  which  he  lives.  On  that  point,  I  presume,  there  can  be  no 
diversity  of  opinion.  You  and  I  are  bound  to  extend  to  our  inferior  and 
dependent  beings  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  facility  and  immunity 
consistent  with  the  public  good. 

The  question  then  arises.  What  rights  and  privileges  are  consistent  with 
the  public  good  ?  This  is  a  question  which  each  State  and  each  Territory 
must  decide  for  itself :  Illinois  has  decided  it  for  herself.  We  have  pro- 
vided that  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  and  we  have  also  provided  that 
he  shall  not  be  a  citizen,  but  protect  him  in  his  civil  rights,  in  his  life,  his 
person  and  his  property,  only  depriving  him  of  all  political  rights  whatso- 
ever, and  refusing  to  put  him  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  That 
policy  of  Illinois  is  satisfactory  to  the  Democratic  party  and  to  me  ;  and  if  it 
were  to  the  Eepublicans,  there  would  then  be  no  question  upon  the  subject. 
But  the  Eepublicans  say  that  he  ought  to  be  made  a  citizen,  and  when  he 
becomes  a  citizen  he  becomes  your  equal,  with  all  your  rights  and  privileges. 
They  assert  the  Dred  Scott  decision  to  be  monstrous  because  it  denies  that  the 
negro  is  or  can  be  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution.  Now,  I  hold  that  Illinois 
had  a  right  to  abolish  and  prohibit  slavery  as  she  did,  and  I  hold  tliat  Ken- 
tucky has  the  same  right  to  continue  and  protect  slavery  that  Illinois  had  to 
abolish  it.  I  hold  that  New  York  had  as  much  right  to  abolish  slavery  as 
Virginia  has  to  continue  it,  and  that  each  and  every  State  of  this  Union  is  a 
sovereign  power,  with  the  right  to  do  as  it  pleases  upon  this  question  of 
slavery,  and  upon  all  its  domestic  institutions.  Slavery  is  not  the  only  ques- 
tion which  comes  up  in  this  controversy.  There  is  a  far  more  important  one 
to  you,  and  that  is.  What  shall  be  done  with  the  free  negro  ?  We  have  settled 
the  slavery  question  as  far  as  we  are  concerned ;  we  have  prohibited  it  in 
Illinois  forever  ;  and  in  doing  so,  I  think  we  have  done  wisely,  and  there  is 
no  man  in  the  State  who  would  be  more  strenuous  in  his  opposition  to  the 
introduction  of  slavery  than  I  would.  But  when  we  settled  it  for  ourselves, 
we  exhausted  all  our  power  over  that  subject.  We  have  done  our  whole  duty, 
and  can  do  no  more.  We  must  leave,  each  and  every  other  State  to  decide 
for  itself  the  same  question.  In  relation  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued  toward 
the  free  negroes,  we  have  said  that  they  shall  not  vote ;  whilst  Maine,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  said  that  they  shall  vote.  Maine  is  a  sovereign  State,  and  has 
the  power  to  regulate  the  qualifications  of  voters  within  her  limits.  I  would 
never  consent  to  confer  the  right  of  voting  and  of  citizenship  upon  a  negro ; 

12 


90  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

but  still  I  am  not  going  to  quarrel  withMaine  for  differing  from  me  in  opinion. 
Let  Maine  take  care  of  her  own  negroes,  and  fix  the  qualifications  of  her  own 
voters  to^suit  herself,  without  interfering  with  Illinois,  and  Illinois  will  not 
interfere  with  Maine.  So  with  the  State  of  New  York.  She  allows  the 
negro  to  vote,  provided  he  owns  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars'  worth  of  prop- 
erty, but  not  otherwise.  While  I  would  not  make  any  distinction  whatever 
between  a  negro  who  held  property  and  one  who  did  not,  yet  if  the  sovereign 
State  of  New  York  chooses  to  make  that  distinction,  it  is  her  business  and  not 
mine,  and  I  will  not  quarrel  with  her  for  it.  She  can  do  as  she  pleases  on 
this  question  if  she  minds  her  own  business,  and  we  will  do  the  same  thing. 
Now,  my  friends,  if  we  will  only  act  conscientiously  and  rigidly  upon  this 
great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  which  guarantees  to  each  State  and 
Territory  the  right  to  do  as  it  pleases  on  all  things,  local  and  domestic,  instead 
of  Congress  interfering,  we  will  continue  at  peace  one  with  another.  Why 
should  Illinois  be  at  war  witli  ]\Iissouri,  or  Kentucky  with  Ohio,  or  Virginia 
with  New  York,  merely  because  their  institutions  differ  ?  Our  fathers  in- 
tended that  our  institutions  should  differ.  They  knew  that  tlie  North  and 
the  South,  having  different  climates,  productions,  and  interests,  required  dif- 
ferent institutions.  This  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  uniformity  among  the 
institutions  of  the  different  States,  is  a  new  doctrine,  never  dreamed  of  by 
Washington,  Madison,  or  the  franiers  of  this  government.  *  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
the  Republican  party  set  themselves  up  as  wiser  than  these  men  who  made 
this  government,  which  has  flourished  for  seventy  years  under  the  principle 
of  popular  sovereignty,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleased. 
Under  that  principle,  we  have  grown  from  a  nation  of  three  or  four  millions 
to  a  nation  of  about  thirty  millions  of  people ;  we  have  crossed  the  Alleghany 
mountains  and  filled  up  the  whole  Northwest,  turning  the  prairie  into  a  gar- 
den, and  building  up  churches  and  schools,  thus  spreading  civilization  and 
Christianity  where  before  there  was  nothing  but  savage  barbarism.  Under 
that  principle  we  have  become,  from  a  feeble  nation,  the  most  powerful  on  the 
face  of  the  earth ;  and  if  we  only  adhere  to  that  principle,  we  can  go  forward 
increasing  in  territory,  in  power,  in  strength,  and  in  glory  until  the  Republic 
of  America  shall  be  the  North  Star  that  shall  guide  the  friends  of  freedom 
throughout  the  civilized  world.  And  why  can  we  not  adhere  to  the  great 
principle  of  self-government,  upon  which  our  institutions  were  originally 
based  ?  I  believe  that  this  new  doctrine  preached  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his 
party  will  dissolve  the  Union  if  it  succeeds.  They  are  trying  to  array  aU  the 
Northern  States  in  one  body  against  the  South,  to  excite  a  sectional  \var 
between  the  Free  States  and  the  Slave  States,  in  order  that  the  one  or  the 
other  may  be  driven  to  the  wall. 

I  am  told  that  my  time  is  out.     Mr.  Lincoln  will  now  address  you  for  an 
hour  and  a  half,  and  I  will  then  occupy  an  half  hour  in  replying  to  him. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY. 

My  Fellow-Citizens  :  When  a  man  hears  himself  somewhat  misrepre- 
sented, it  provokes  him,  —  at  least,  I  find  it  so  with  myself ;  but  when  mis- 
representation becomes  very  gross  and  palpable,  it  is  more  apt  to  amuse  him. 
The  first  thing  I  see  fit  to  notice  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  alleges,  after 
running  through  the  history  of  the  old  Democratic  and  the  old  Whig  parties, 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  91 

that  Judge  Trumbull  and  myself  made  an  arrangement  in  1854,  by  which  I 
was  to  have  the  place  of  General  Shields  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and 
Judge  Trumbull  was  to  have  the  place  of  Judge  Douglas.  Now,  all  I  have 
to  say  upon  that  subject  is  that  I  think  no  man  —  not  even  J  udge  Douglas 
—  can  prove  it,  because  it  is  not  true.  I  have  no  doubt  he  is  "  conscientious  " 
in  saying  it.  As  to  those  resolutions  that  he  took  such  a  length  of  time  to 
read,  as  being  the  platform  of  the  Eepublican  party  in  1854,  I  say  I  never 
had  anything  to  do  with  them,  and  I  think  Trumbull  never  had.  Judge 
Douglas  cannot  show  that  either  of  us  ever  did  have  anything  to  do  with 
them.  I  believe  this  is  true  about  those  resolutions  :  There  was  a  call  for  a 
Convention  to  form  a  Eepublican  party  at  Springfield,  and  I  think  that  my 
friend  Mr.  Lovejoy,  who  is  here  upon  this  stand,  had  a  hand  in  it.  I  think 
this  is  true,  and  I  think  if  he  will  remember  accurately,  he  will  be  able  to 
recollect  that  he  tried  to  get  me  into  it,  and  I  would  not  go  in.  I  believe  it 
is  also  true  that  I  went  away  from  Springfield  when  the  Convention  was  in 
session,  to  attend  court  in  Tazewell  County.  It  is  true  they  did  place  my 
name,  thongh  without  authority,  upon  the  committee,  and  afterward  wrote  me 
to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  committee  ;  but  I  refused  to  do  so,  and  I  never 
had  anything  to  do  with  that  organization.  This  is  the  plain  truth  about  all 
that  matter  of  the  resolutions. 

Now,  about  this  story  that  Judge  Douglas  tells  of  Trumbull  bargaining  to 
sell  out  the  old  Democratic  party,  and  Lincoln  agreeing  to  sell  out  the  old 
Whig  party,  I  have  the  means  of  knowing  about  that :  Judge  Douglas  cannot 
have ;  and  I  know  there  is  no  substance  to  it  whatever.  Yet  I  have  no  doubt 
he  is  "  conscientioits  "  about  it.  I  know  that  after  Mr.  Lovejoy  got  into  the 
Legislature  that  winter,  he  complained  of  me  that  I  had  told  all  the  old  Whigs 
of  his  district  that  the  old  Whig  party  was  good  enough  for  them,  and  some 
of  them  voted  against  him  because  I  told  them  so.  Now,  I  have  no  means 
of  totally  disproving  such  charges  as  this  which  the  Judge  makes.  A  man 
cannot  prove  a  negative ;  but  he  has  a  right  to  claim  that  when  a  man  makes 
an  affirmative  charge,  he  must  offer  some  proof  to  show  the  truth  of  what  he 
says.  I  certainly  cannot  introduce  testimony  to  show  tlie  negative  about 
things,  but  I  have  a  right  to  claim  that  if  a  man  says  he  knows  a  thing,  then 
he  must  show  lioiv  he  knows  it.  I  always  have  a  right  to  claim  this,  and  it  is 
not  satisfactory  to  me  that  he  may  be  "  conscientious  "  on  the  subject. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  hate  to  waste  my  time  on  such  things ;  but  in  regard 
to  that  general  Al)olition  tilt  that  Judge  Douglas  makes,  when  he  says  that  I 
was  engaged  at  that  time  in  selling  out  and  Abolitionizing  the  old  Whig  party, 
I  hope  you  will  permit  me  to  read  a  part  of  a  printed  speech  that  I  made  then 
at  Peoria,  which  will  show  altogether  a  different  view  of  the  position  I  took  in 
that  contest  of  1854. 

Voice  :  "  Put  on  your  specs." 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Yes,  sir,  I  am  obliged  to  do  so  ;  I  am  no  longer  a  young  man. 

"  Tliis  is  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.-'  The  foregoing  history  may 
not  be  precisely  accurate  in  every  particular,  but  I  am  sure  it  is  sufficiently  so  for  all 
the  uses  I  shall  attempt  to  make  of  it,  and  in  it  we  have  before  us  the  chief  materials 
enabling  us  to  correctly  judge  whether  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  is  right 
or  wrong. 

^  This  extract  from  Mr.  Lincoln's  Peoria  speech  of  1854  was  read  by  him  in  the  Ottawa  debate, 
but  was  not  reported  fully  or  accurately  in  either  the  "  Times  "  or  "  Press  and  Tribune."  It  is  in- 
serted now  as  necessary  to  a  complete  report  of  the  debate. 


92  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

"  I  think,  and  shall  try  to  show,  that  it  is  wrong,  —  Avrong  in  its  direct  effect, 
letting  slavery  into  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  wrong  in  its  prospective  principle, 
allowing  it  to  spread  to  every  other  part  of  the  wide  world  where  men  can  be  found 
inclined  to  take  it. 

"  This  declared  indifference,  but,  as  I  must  think,  covert  real  zeal  for  the  spread 
of  slavery,  I  cannot  but  hate.  I  hate  it  because  of  the  monstrous  injustice  of  slavery 
itself.  I  hate  it  because  it  deprives  our  republican  example  of  its  just  influence  in 
the  world,  —  enables  the  enemies  of  free  institutions,  witli  plausibility,  to  taunt  us  as 
hypocrites ;  causes  the  real  friends  of  freedom  to  doubt  our  sincerity,  and  especially 
because  it  forces  so  many  really  good  men  amongst  ourselves  into  an  open  war 
with  the  very  fundamental  principles  of  civil  liberty,  —  criticising  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  insisting  that  there  is  no  right  principle  of  action  but  self- 
interest. 

"  Before  proceeding,  let  me  say  I  think  I  have  no  prejudice  against  the  Southern 
people.  They  are  just  what  we  Avould  be  in  their  situation.  If  slavery  did  not  now 
exist  among  them,  they  would  not  introduce  it.  If  it  did  now  exist  among  us, 
we  should  not  instantly  give  it  up.  This  I  believe  of  the  masses  North  and  South. 
Doubtless  there  are  individuals  on  both  sides  who  would  not  hold  slaves  under  any 
circumstances  ;  and  others  who  would  gladly  introduce  slavery  anew,  if  it  were  out 
of  existence.  We  know  that  some  Southern  men  do  free  their  slaves,  go  North,  and 
become  tip-top  Abolitionists  ;  while  some  Northern  ones  go  South  and  become  most 
cruel  slave-masters. 

"  When  Southern  people  tell  us  they  are  no  more  responsible  for  the  origin  of 
slavery  than  we,  I  acknowledge  the  fact.  When  it  is  said  that  the  institution  exists, 
and  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  rid  of  it,  in  any  satisfactory  way,  I  can  understand 
and  appreciate  the  saying.  I  surely  will  not  blame  them  for  not  doing  what  I  should 
not  know  how  to  do  myself.  If  all  earthly  power  were  given  me,  I  should  not  know 
what  to  do,  as  to  the  existing  institution.  My  first  impulse  would  be  to  free  all  the 
slaves  and  send  them  to  Liberia,  —  to  their  own  native  land.  But  a  moment's  reflec- 
tion would  convince  me  that  whatever  of  high  hope  (as  I  think  there  is)  there  may 
be  in  this,  in  the  long  run,  its  sudden  execution  is  impossible.  If  they  were  all 
landed  there  in  a  day,  they  would  all  perish  in  the  next  ten  days ;  and  there  are  not 
surplus  shipping  and  surplus  money  enough  in  the  world  to  carry  them  there  in  many 
times  ten  days.  What  then  1  Free  them  all  and  keep  them  among  us  as  underlings  1 
Is  it  quite  certain  that  this  betters  their  condition  %  I  think  I  would  not  hold  one  in 
slavery,  at  any  rate  ;  yet  the  point  is  not  clear  enough  to  me  to  denounce  people 
upon.  What  next  1  Free  them,  and  make  them  politically  and  socially  our  equals  X 
My  own  feelings  will  not  admit  of  this  ;  and  if  mine  would,  we  well  know  that  those 
of  the  great  mass  of  white  people  will  not.  Whether  this  feeling  accords  with 
justice  and  sound  judgment,  is  not  the  sole  question,  if,  indeed,  it  is  any  part  of  it. 
A  universal  feeling,  whether  well  or  ill  founded,  cannot  be  safely  disregarded.  We, 
cannot,  then,  make  them  equals.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  systems  of  gradual  eman- 
cipation might  be  adopted  ;  but  for  their  tardiness  in  this,  I  will  not  undertake  to 
judge  our  brethren  of  the  South. 

"  When  they  remind  us  of  their  constitutional  rights,  I  acknowledge  them,  not 
grudgingl}^,  but  fully  and  fairly  ;  and  I  would  give  them  any  legislation  for  the 
reclaiming  of  their  fugitives  which  should  not,  in  its  stringency,  be  more  likely 
to  carry  a  free  man  into  slavery,  than  our  ordinary  criminal  laws  are  to  hang  an 
innocent  one. 

"  But  all  this,  to  my  judgment,  furnishes  no  more  excuse  for  permitting  slavery  to 
go  into  our  own  free  territory  than  it  would  for  reviving  the  African  slave-trade  by 
law.  The  law  which  forbids  the  bringing  of  slaves  from  Africa,  and  that  which  has 
so  long  forbid  the  taking  of  them  to  Nebraska,  can  hardly  be  distinguished  on  any 
moral  principle ;  and  the  repeal  of  the  former  could  find  quite  as  plausible  excuses 
as  that  of  the  latter." 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  98 

I  have  reason  to  know  that  Judge  Douglas  knows  that  I  said  this.  I  think 
he  has  the  answer  here  to  one  of  the  questions  he  put  to  me.  I  do  not  mean 
to  allow  him  to  catechise  me  unless  he  pays  back  for  it  in  kind.  I  will  not 
answer  questions  one  after  another,  unless  he  reciprocates ;  but  as  he  has  made 
this  inquiry,  and  I  have  answered  it  before,  he  has  got  it  without  my  getting 
anything  in  return.     He  has  got  my  answer  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater  length  ;  but  this  is  the 
true  complexion  of  all  I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery 
and  the  black  race.  This  is  the  whole  of  it ;  and  anything  that  argues  me  into 
his  idea  of  perfect  social  and  political  equality  with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious 
and  fantastic  arrangement  of  words,  by  which  a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut 
to  be  a  chestnut  horse.  I  will  say  liere,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  1  have 
no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in 
the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I 
have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce  political  and 
social  equality  between  the  white  and  the  black  races.  There  is  a  physical 
difference  between  the  two  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever 
forbid  their  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality ;  and  inasmuch 
as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge 
Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having  the  superior  position. 
I  have  never  said  anything  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all 
this,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to  all  the 
natural  rights  enumerated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  —  the  right  to 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  entitled 
to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree  with  Judge  Douglas  he  is  not  my  equal  in 
many  respects,  —  certainly  not  in  color,  perhaps  not  in  moral  or  intellectual 
endowment.  But  in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread,  without  the  leave  of  anybody 
else,  which  his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas, 
and.  the  equal  of  every  living  man. 

Now  I  pass  on  to  consider  one  or  two  more  of  these  little  follies.  The 
Judge  is  wofully  at  fault  about  his  early  friend  Lincoln  being  a  "grocery- 
keeper."  I  don't  know  as  it  would  be  a  great  sin,  if  I  had  been  ;  but  he  is 
mistaken.  Lincoln  never  kept  a  grocery  anywhere  in  the  world.  It  is  true 
that  Lincoln  did  work  the  latter  part  of  one  winter  in  a  little  still-house,  up  at 
the  head  of  a  hollow.  And  so  I  think  my  friend  the  Judge  is  equally  at  fault 
when  he  charges  me  at  the  time  when  I  was  in  Congress  of  having  opposed 
our  soldiers  who  were  fighting  in  the  Mexican  war.  The  Judge  did  not  make 
his  charge  very  distinctly,  but  I  can  tell  you  what  he  can  prove,  by  referring 
to  the  record.  You  remember  I  was  an  old  Whig,  and  whenever  the  Demo- 
cratic party  tried  to  get  me  to  vote  that  the  war  had  been  righteously  begun 
by  the  President,  I  would  not  do  it.  But  whenever  they  asked  for  any  money, 
or  land-warrants,  or  anything  to  pay  the  soldiers  there,  during  all  that  time,  I 
gave  the  same  vote  that  Judge  Douglas  did.  You  can  think  as  you  please  as 
to  whether  that  was  consistent.  Such  is  the  truth  ;  and  the  Judge  has  the  right 
to  make  all  he  can  out  of  it.  But  when  he,  by  a  general  charge,  conveys  the 
idea  that  I  withheld  supplies  from  the  soldiers  who  were  fighting  in  the  Mexi- 
can war,  or  did  anything  else  to  hinder  the  soldiers,  he  is,  to  say  the  least,  grossly 
and  altogether  mistaken,  as  a  consultation  of  the  records  will  prove  to  him. 

As  I  have  not  used  up  so  much  of  my  time  as  I  had  supposed,  I  will  dwell 
a  little  longer  upon  one  or  two  of  these  minor  topics  upon  which  the  Judge  has 
spoken.  He  has  read  from  my  speech  in  Springfield,  in  which  I  say  that  "  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."     Does  the  Judge  say  it  can  stand  ? 


94  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

I  don't  know  whether  he  does  or  not.  The  Judge  does  not  seem  to  be  attend- 
ing to  me  just  now,  but  I  would  like  to  know  if  it  is  his  opinion  that  a  house 
divided  against  itself  can  stand.  If  he  does,  then  there  is  a  question  of 
veracity,  not  between  him  and  me,  but  between  the  Judge  and  an  authority  of 
a  somewhat  higher  character. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  ask  your  attention  to  this  matter  for  the  purpose  of  say- 
ing something  seriously.  I  know  that  the  Judge  may  readily  enough  agree 
with  me  that  the  maxim  which  was  put  forth  by  the  Saviour  is  true,  but  he 
may  allege  that  I  misapply  it ;  and  the  Judge  has  a  right  to  urge  that,  in  my 
application,  I  do  misapply  it,  and  then  I  have  a  right  to  show  that  I  do  not 
misapply  it.  When  he  undertakes  to  say  that  because  I  think  this  nation,  so 
far  as  the  question  of  slavery  is  concerned,  will  all  become  one  thing  or  all  the 
other,  I  am  in  favor  of  bringing  about  a  dead  uniformity  in  the  various  States, 
in  all  their  institutions,  he  argues  erroneously.  The  great  variety  of  the  local 
institutions  in  the  States,  springing  from  differences  in  the  soil,  differences  in 
the  face  of  the  country,  and  in  the  climate,  are  bonds  of  Union.  They  do  not 
make  "  a  house  divided  against  itself,"  but  they  make  a  house  united.  If  they 
produce  in  one  section  of  the  country  what  is  called  for  by  the  wants  of  another 
section,  and  this  other  section  can  supply  the  wants  of  the  first,  they  are  not 
matters  of  discord,  but  bonds  of  union,  true  bonds  of  union.  But  can  this 
question  of  slavery  be  considered  as  among  these  varieties  in  the  institutions  of 
the  country  ?  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say  whether,  in  the  history  of  our  govern- 
ment, this  institution  of  slavery  has  not  always  failed  to  be  a  bond  of  union, 
and,  on  the  contrary,  been  an  apple  of  discord  and  an  element  of  division  in  the 
house.  I  ask  you  to  consider  whether,  so  long  as  the  moral  constitution  of 
men's  minds  shall  continue  to  be  the  same,  after  this  generation  and  assem- 
blage shall  sink  into  the  grave,  and  another  race  shall  arise,  with  the  same 
moral  and  intellectual  development  we  have,  —  whether,  if  that  institution  is 
standing  in  the  same  irritating  position  in  which  it  now  is,  it  will  not  continue 
an  element  of  division  ?  If  so,  then  I  have  a  right  to  say  that,  in  regard  to 
this  question,  the  Union  is  a  house  divided  against  itself;  and  when  the  Judge 
reminds  me  that  I  have  often  said  to  him  that  the  institution  of  slavery  has 
existed  for  eighty  years  in  some  States,  and  yet  it  does  not  exist  in  some 
others,  I  agree  to  the  fact,  and  I  account  for  it  by  looking  at  the  position  in 
which  our  fathers  originally  placed  it,  —  restricting  it  from  the  new  Territories 
where  it  had  not  gone,  and  legislating  to  cut  off  its  source  by  the  abrogation  of 
the  slave-trade,  thus  putting  the  seal  of  legislation  against  its  sjpread.  The 
public  mind  did  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc- 
tion. But  lately,  I  think  —  and  in  this  I  charge  nothing  on  the  Judge's 
motives  —  lately,  I  think,  that  he,  and  those  acting  with  him,  have  placed  that 
institution  on  a  new  basis,  which  looks  to  the  'perpetuity  and  nationalization  of 
slavery.  And  while  it  is  placed  upon  this  new  basis,  I  say,  and  I  have  said, 
that  I  believe  we  shall  not  have  peace  upon  the  question  until  the  opponents 
of  slavery  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  miud 
shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction  ;  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new.  North  as  well  as  South.  Now,  I 
believe  if  we  could  arrest  the  spread,  and  place  it  where  Washington  and  Jef- 
ferson and  Madison  placed  it,  it  would  he  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction, 
and  the  public  mind  would,  as  for  eighty  years  past,  believe  that  it  was  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  The  crisis  would  be  past,  and  the  institution 
might  be  let  alone  for  a  hundred  years,  if  it  should  live  so  long,  in  the  States 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  95 

where  it  exists  ;  yet  it  would  be  going  out  of  existence  in  the  way  best  for  both 
the  black  and  the  white  races. 

A  Voice  :  "  Then  do  you  repudiate  Popular  Sovereignty  ?  " 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Well,  then,  let  us  talk  about  Popular  Sovereignty  !  What  is 
Popular  Sovereignty  ?  Is  it  the  right  of  the  people  to  have  slavery  or  not 
have  it,  as  they  see  fit,  in  the  Territories  ?  I  will  state  —  and  I  have  an  able 
man  to  watch  me  —  my  understanding  is  that  Popular  Sovereignty,  as  now 
applied  to  the  question  of  slavery,  does  allow  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  have 
slavery  if  they  want  to,  but  does  not  allow  them  not  to  have  it  if  they  do  not 
want  it.  I  do  not  mean  tliat  if  this  vast  concourse  of  people  were  in  a  Terri- 
tory of  the  United  States,  any  one  of  them  would  be  obliged  to  have  a  slave  if 
he  did  not  want  one  ;  but  I  do  say  that,  as  I  understand  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
if  any  one  man  wants  slaves,  all  the  rest  have  no  way  of  keeping  that  one  man 
from  holding  them. 

When  I  made  my  speech  at  Springfield,  of  which  the  Judge  complains,  and 
from  which  he  quotes,  I  really  was  not  thinking  of  the  things  which  he  ascribes 
to  me  at  all.  I  had  no  thought  in  the  world  that  I  was  doing  anything  to 
bring  about  a  war  between  the  Free  and  Slave  States.  I  had  no  thought  in 
the  world  that  I  was  doing  anything  to  bring  about  a  political  and  social 
equality  of  the  black  and  white  races.  It  never  occurred  to  me  that  I  was 
doing  anything  or  favoring  anything  to  reduce  to  a  dead  uniformity  all  the 
local  institutions  of  the  various  States.  But  I  must  say,  in  all  fairness  to 
him,  if  he  thinks  I  am  doing  something  which  leads  to  these  bad  results,  it  is 
none  the  better  that  I  did  not  mean  it.  It  is  just  as  fatal  to  the  country,  if  I 
have  any  influence  in  producing  it,  whether  I  intend  it  or  not.  But  can  it 
be  true  that  placing  this  institution  upon  the  original  basis  —  the  basis  upon 
which  our  fathers  placed  it  ■ —  can  have  any  tendency  to  set  the  Northern  and 
the  Southern  States  at  war  with  one  another,  or  that  it  can  have  any  ten- 
dency to  make  the  people  of  Vermont  raise  sugar-cane,  because  they  raise  it  in 
Louisiana,  or  that  it  can  compel  the  people  of  Illinois  to  cut  pine  logs  on  the 
Grand  Prairie,  where  they  will  not  grow,  because  they  cut  pine  logs  in  Maine, 
where  they  do  grow  ?  The  Judge  says  this  is  a  new  principle  started  in 
regard  to  this  question.  Does  the  Judge  claim  that  he  is  working  on  the 
plan  of  the  founders  of  government  ?  I  think  he  says  in  some  of  his  siDceches 
—  indeed,  I  have  one  here  now  —  that  he  saw  evidence  of  a  policy  to  allow 
slavery  to  be  south  of  a  certain  line,  while  north  of  it  it  should  be  excluded, 
and  he  saw  an  indisposition  on  the  part  of  the  country  to  stand  upon  that 
policy,  and  therefore  he  set  about  studying  the  subject  upon  original  'princi- 
ples, and  upon  original  principles  he  got  up  the  Nebraska  bill!  I  am  fighting 
it  upon  these  "  original  principles,"  —  fighting  it  in  the  Jefi'ersonian,  Washing- 
tonian,  and  Madisonian  fashion. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  wish  you  to  attend  for  a  little  while  to  one  or  two  other 
things  in  that  Springfield  speech.  My  main  object  was  to  show,  so  far  as  my 
humble  ability  was  capable  of  showing,  to  the  people  of  this  country  what  I 
believed  was  the  truth,  —  that  there  was  a  tendency,  if  not  a  conspiracy,  among 
those  who  have  engineered  this  slavery  question  for  the  last  four  or  five  years, 
to  make  slavery  perpetual  and  universal  in  this  nation.  Having  made  that 
speech  principally  for  that  object,  after  arranging  the  evidences  that  I  thought 
tended  to  prove  my  proposition,  I  concluded  with  this  bit  of  comment :  — 

"  We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  these  exact  adaptations  are  the  result  of  pre- 
concert ;  but  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions  of  which  we 


96  DEBATES    BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

know  have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places,  and  by  different  workmen, 
—  Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger,  and  James,  for  instance,  —  and  when  we  see  these  tim- 
bers joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mil],  all 
the  tenons  and  mortises  exactly  fitting,  and  all  the  lengths  and  proportions  of  the 
different  pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their  respective  places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many 
or  too  few,  —  not  omitting  even  the  scaffolding,  —  or  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we 
see  the  place  in  the  frame  exactly  fitted  and  prepared  yet  to  bring  such  piece  in,  — 
in  such  a  case  we  feel  it  impossible  not  to  believe  that  Stephen  and  Franklin  and 
Roger  and  James  all  understood  one  another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked 
upon  a  common  plan  or  draft  drawn  before  the  first  blow  was  struck." 

When  my  friend  Judg)  Douglas  came  to  Chicago  on  the  9th  of  July,  this 
speech  having  been  delivered  on  the  16th  of  June,  he  made  an  harangue  there, 
in  which  he  took  hold  of  this  speech  of  mine,  showing  that  he  had  carefully 
read  it ;  and  while  he  paid  no  attention  to  this  matter  at  all,  but  complimented 
me  as  being  a  "  kind,  amiable,  and  intelligent  gentleman,"  notwithstanding  I 
had  said  this,  he  goes  on  and  eliminates,  or  draws  out,  from  my  speech  this 
tendency  of  mine  to  set  the  States  at  war  with  one  another,  to  make  all 
the  institutions  uniform,  and  set  the  niggers  and  white  people  to  marrying 
together.  Then,  as  the  Judge  had  complimented  me  with  these  pleasant  titles 
(I  must  confess  to  my  weakness),  I  was  a  little  "  taken,"  for  it  came  from  a 
great  man.  I  was  not  very  much  accustomed  to  flattery,  and  it  came  the 
sweeter  to  me.  I  was  rather  like  the  Hoosier,  with  the  gingerbread,  when  he 
said  he  reckoned  he  loved  it  better  than  any  other  man,  and  got  less  of  it. 
As  the  Judge  had  so  flattered  me,  I  could  not  make  up  my  mind  that  he  meant 
to  deal  unfairly  with  me ;  so  I  went  to  work  to  show  him  that  he  misunder- 
stood the  whole  scope  of  my  speech,  and  that  1  really  never  intended  to  set 
the  people  at  war  with  one  another.  As  an  illustration,  the  next  time  I  met 
him,  which  was  at  Springfield,  I  used  this  expression,  that  I  claimed  no  right 
under  the  Constitution,  nor  had  1  any  inclination,  to  enter  into  the  Slave 
States  and  interfere  with  the  institutions  of  slavery.  He  says  upon  that : 
Lincoln  will  not  enter  into  the  Slave  States,  but  will  go  to  the  banks,  of  the 
Ohio,  on  this  side,  and  shoot  over !  He  runs  on,  step  by  step,  in  the  horse- 
chestnut  style  of  argument,  until  in  the  Springfield  speech  he  says :  "  Unless 
he  shall  be  successful  in  firing  his  batteries,  until  he  shall  have  extinguished 
slavery  in  all  the  States,  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved."  Now,  I  don't  think 
that  was  exactly  the  way  to  treat  "a  kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gentleman." 
I  know  if  I  had  asked  the  Judge  to  show  when  or  where  it  was  I  had  said 
that,  if  I  did  n't  succeed  in  firing  into  the  Slave  States  until  slavery  should 
be  extinguished,  the  Union  should  be  dissolved,  he  could  not  have  shown  it. 
I  understand  what  he  would  do.  He  would  say,  "  I  don't  mean  to  quote  from 
you,  but  this  was  the  result  of  what  you  say."  But  I  have  the  right  to  ask, 
and  I  do  ask  now.  Did  you  not  put  it  in  such  a  form  that  an  ordinary  reader 
or  listener  would  take  it  as  an  expression  from  me  ? 

In  a  speech  at  Springfield,  on  the  night  of  the  17th,  I  thought  I  might  as 
well  attend  to  my  own  business  a  little,  and  I  recalled  his  attention  as  well 
as  I  could  to  this  charge  of  conspiracy  to  nationalize  slavery.  I  called  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  he  had  acknowledged,  in  my  hearing  twice,  that  he 
had  carefully  read  the  speech,  and,  in  the  language  of  the  lawyers,  as  he  had 
twice  read  the  speech,  and  still  had  put  in  no  plea  or  answer,  I  took  a  default 
on  him.  I  insisted  that  I  had  a  right  then  to  renew  that  charge  of  conspiracy. 
Ten  days  afterward  I  met  the  Judge  at  Clinton,  —  that  is  to  say,  I  was  on  the 


AND   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  97 

ground,  but  not  in  the  discussion,  —  and  heard  him  make  a  speech.  Then  he 
comes  in  with  his  plea  to  this  charge,  for  the  lirst  time ;  and  his  plea  when 
put  in,  as  well  as  I  can  recollect  it,  amounted  to  this  :  that  he  never  liad  any 
talk  with  Judge  Taney  or  the  President  of  the  United  States  with  regard  to 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  before  it  was  made.  I  (Lincoln)  ought  to  know  that 
the  man  who  makes  a  cliarge  without  knowing  it  to  be  true,  falsifies  as  much 
as  he  who  knowingly  tells  a  falsehood ;  and,  lastly,  that  he  would  pronounce 
the  whole  thing  a  falsehood ;  but  he  would  make  no  personal  application  of 
the  charge  of  falsehood,  not  because  of  any  regard  for  the  "  kind,  amiable, 
intelligent  gentleman,"  but  because  of  his  own  personal  self-respect !  I  have 
understood  since  then  (but  [turning  to  Judge  Douglas]  will  not  hold  the 
Judge  to  it  if  he  is  not  willing)  that  he  has  broken  through  the  "  self-respect," 
and  has  got  to  saying  the  thing  out.  The  Judge  nods  to  me  that  it  is  so.  It 
is  fortunate  for  me  that  I  can  keep  as  good-humored  as  I  do,  when  the  Judge 
acknowledges  that  he  has  been  trying  to  make  a  question  of  veracity  with  me. 
I  know  the  Judge  is  a  great  man,  while  I  am  only  a  small  man,  but  I  feel  that 
I  have  got  him.  I  demur  to  that  plea.  I  waive  all  objections  that  it  was  not 
filed  till  after  default  was  taken,  and  demur  to  it  upon  the  merits.  What  if 
Judge  Douglas  never  did  talk  with  Chief  Justice  Taney  and  the  President 
before  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  made,  does  it  follow  that  he  could  not  have 
had  as  perfect  an  understanding  without  talking  as  with  it  ?  I  am  not  dis- 
posed to  stand  upon  my  legal  advantage.  I  am  disposed  to  take  his  denial  as 
being  like  an  answer  in  chancery,  that  he  neither  had  any  knowledge,  informa- 
tion, or  belief  in  the  existence  of  such  a  conspiracy.  I  am  disposed  to  take 
his  answer  as  being  as  broad  as  though  he  had  put  it  in  these  words.  And 
now,  I  ask,  even  if  he  had  done  so,  have  not  I  a  right  to  prove  it  on  him,  and 
to  offer  the  evidence  of  more  than  two  witnesses,  by  whom  to  prove  it ;  and 
if  the  evidence  proves  the  existence  of  the  conspiracy,  does  his  broad  answer 
denying  all  knowledge,  information,  or  belief,  disturb  the  fact  ?  It  can  only 
show  that  he  was  used  by  conspirators,  and  was  not  a  leader  of  them. 

Now,  in  regard  to  his  reminding  me  of  the  moral  rule  that  persons  who  tell 
what  they  do  not  know  to  be  true,  falsify  as  much  as  those  who  knowingly 
tell  falsehoods.  I  remember  the  rule,  and  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in 
what  I  have  read  to  you,  I  do  not  say  that  I  know  such  a  conspiracy  to  exist. 
To  that  I  reply,  /  bdieve  it.  If  the  Judge  says  that  I  do  not  believe  it,  then 
he  says  what  he  does  not  know,  and  falls  within  his  own  rule,  that  he  who 
asserts  a  thing  which  he  does  not  know  to  be  true,  falsifies  as  much  as  he  who 
knowingly  tells  a  falsehood.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a  little  discus- 
sion on  that  branch  of  the  case,  and  the  evidence  which  brought  my  mind  to 
the  conclusion  which  I  expressed  as  my  belief.  If,  in  arraying  that  evidence, 
I  had  stated  anything  which  was  false  or  erroneous,  it  needed  but  that  Judge 
Douglas  should  point  it  out,  and  I  would  have  taken  it  back,  with  all  the 
kindness  in  the  world.  I  do  not  deal  in  that  way.  If  I  have  brought  for- 
ward anything  not  a  fact,  if  he  will  point  it  out,  it  will  not  even  ruffle  me  to 
take  it  back.  But  if  he  will  not  point  out  anything  erroneous  in  the  evi- 
dence, is  it  not  rather  for  him  to  show,  by  a  comparison  of  the  evidence,  that 
I  have  reasoned  falsely,  than  to  call .  the  "  kind,  amiable,  intelligent  gentle- 
man "  a  liar  ?  If  I  have  reasoned  to  a  false  conclusion,  it  is  the  vocation  of 
an  able  debater  to  show  by  argument  that  I  have  w^andered  to  an  erroneous 
conclusion.  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to  a  portion  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
which  Judge  Douglas  has  quoted  :  "  It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
this  Act,  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it 

13 


98  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

therefrom,  but  to  leave  tbe  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States."  Thereupon  Judge  Douglas  and  others  began  to  argue 
in  favor  of  "  Popular  Sovereignty,"  —  the  right  of  the  people  to  have  slaves  if 
they  wanted  them,  and  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  did  not  want  them.  "  But," 
said,  in  substance,  a  Senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase,  I  believe),  "  we  more 
than  suspect  that  you  do  not  mean  to  allow  the  people  to  exclude  slavery  if 
they  wish  to ;  and  if  you  do  mean  it,  accept  an  amendment  which  I  propose, 
expressly  authorizing  the  people  to  exclude  slavery."  I  believe  I  have  tl^e 
amendment  here  before  me,  which  was  offered,  and  under  which  the  people 
of  the  Territory,  through  their  proper  representatives,  might,  if  they  saw  fit, 
prohibit  the  existence  of  slavery  therein.  And  now  I  state  it  as  a  fad,  to  be 
taken  back  if  there  is  any  mistake  about  it,  that  Judge  Douglas  and  those 
acting  with  him  voted  that  amcndincnt  dotvn.  I  now  think  that  those  men 
who  voted  it  down  had  a  7'cal  reason  for  doing  so.  They  know  what  that 
reason  was.  It  looks  to  us,  since  we  have  seen  the  Dred  Scott  decision  pro- 
nounced, holding  that  "under  the  Constitution,"  the  people  cannot  exclude 
slavery,  —  I  say  it  looks  to  outsiders,  poor,  simple,  "  amiable,  intelligent 
gentlemen,"  as  though  the  niche  was  left  as  a  place  to  put  that  Dred  Scott 
decision  in,  —  a  niche  which  would  have  been  spoiled  by  adopting  the  amend- 
ment. And  now,  I  say  again,  if  this  was  not  the  reason,  it  will  avail  the 
Judge  much  more  to  calmly  and  good-humoredly  point  out  to  these  people 
what  that  other  reason  was  "for  voting  the  amendnient  down,  than,  swelling 
himself  up,  to  vociferate  that  he  may  be  provoked  to  call  somebody  a  liar. 

Again  :  there  is  in  that  same  quotation  from  the  Nebraska  bill  this  clause : 
"  It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  bill  not  to  legislate  slavery  into 
any  Territory  or  State."  I  have  always  been  puzzled  to  know  wdiat  business 
the  w^ord  "State"  had  in  that  connection.  Judge  Douglas  knows.  He  put  it 
there.  He  knows  what  he  put  it  there  for.  We  outsiders  cannot  say  what 
he  put  it  there  for.  The  law  they  were  passing  was  not  about  States,  and 
was  not  making  provisions  for  States.  What  was  it  placed  there  for  ?  After 
seeing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  holds  that  the  people  cannot  exclude 
slavery  from  a  Territory,  if  another  Dred  Scott  decision  shall  come,  holding 
that  they  cannot  exclude  it  from  a  State,  we  shall  discover  that  when  the 
word  was  originally  put  there,  it  was  in  view  of  something  wdiich  was  to  come 
in  due  time,  we  shall  see  that  it  was  the  other  half  of  something.  I  now  say 
again,  if  there  is  any  different  reason  for  putting  it  there,  Judge  Douglas, 
in  a  good-humored  way,  without  calling  anybody  a  liar,  can  tell  what  the 
reason  was. 

When  the  Judge  spoke  at  Clinton,  he  came  very  near  making  a  charge  of 
falsehood  against  me.  He  used,  as  I  found  it  printed  in  a  newspaper,  which, 
I  remember,  was  very  nearly  like  the  real  speech,  the  following  language : 

"  I  did  not  answer  the  charge  [of  conspiracy]  befoi-e,  for  the  reason  that  I  did 
not  suppose  there  was  a  man  in  America  with  a  heart  so  corrupt  as  to  beUeve  such 
a  charge  could  be  true.  I  have  too  much  respect  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  suppose  he  is 
serious  in  making  the  charge." 

I  confess  this  is  rather  a  curious  view,  that  out  of  respect  for  me  he  should 
consider  I  was  making  what  I  deemed  rather  a  grave  charge  in  fun.  I  con- 
fess it  strikes  me  rather  strangely.  But  I  let  it  pass.  As  the  Judge  did  not 
for  a  moment  believe  that  there  was  a  man  in  America  whose  heart  w^as  so 
"  corrupt "  as  to  make  such  a  charge,  and  as  he  places  me  among  the  "  men  in 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  99 

America  "  who  have  hearts  base  enough  to  make  such  a  charge,  I  hope  he  will 
excuse  me  if  I  hunt  out  another  charge  very  like  this ;  and  if  it  should  turn 
out  that  in  hunting  I  should  find  that  other,  and  it  should  turn  out  to  be 
Judge  Douglas  himself  who  made  it,  I  hope  he  will  reconsider  this  question 
of  the  deep  corruption  of  heart  he  has  thought  fit  to  ascribe  to  me.  In  Judge 
Douglas's  speech  of  March  22,  1858,  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  he  says:  — 

"  lu  this  connection  there  is  another  topic  to  which  I  desire  to  allude.  I  seldom 
refer  to  the  course  of  newspapers,  or  notice  the  articles  which  they  publish  in  regard 
to  myself;  but  the  course  of  the  Washington  '  Union  '  has  been  so  exti'aordinary,  for 
the  last  two  or  three  months,  that  I  think  it  well  enough  to  make  some  allusion  to 
it.  It  has  read  me  out  of  the  Democratic  party  every  other  day,  at  least  for  two  or 
three  mouths,  and  keeps  reading  me  out,  and,  as  if  it  had  not  succeeded,  still  con- 
tinues to  read  me  out,  using  such  tei-ms  as  'traitor,'  'renegade,'  'deserter,'  and 
other  kind  and  polite  epithets  of  that  nature.  Sir,  I  have  no  vindication  to  make 
of  my  Democracy  against  the  Washington  '  Union,'  or  any  other  newspapers.  I  am 
wilhug  to  allow  my  history  and  action  for  the  last  twenty  years  to  speak  for  them- 
selves as  to  my  political  principles  and  my  fidelity  to  political  obligations.  The 
Washington  '  Union  '  has  a  personal  grievance.  When  its  editor  was  nominated 
for  public  printer,  I  declined  to  vote  for  him,  and  stated  that  at  some  time  I  might 
give  my  reasons  for  doing  so  Since  I  declined  to  give  that  vote,  this  scurrilous 
abuse,  these  vindictive  aud  constant  attacks  have  been  repeated  almost  daily  on  me. 
Will  my  friend  from  Michigan  read  the  article  to  which  I  allude'? " 

This  is  a  part  of  the  speech.  You  must  excuse  me  from  reading  the  entire 
article  of  the  Washington  "  Union,"  as  Mr.  Stuart  read  it  for  Mr.  Douglas. 
The  Judge  goes  on  and  sums  up,  as  I  think,  correctly  :  — 

"  Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions  advanced  boldly  by 
the  Washington  'Union'  editorially,  and  Si\)])a,rentlj  authoritativeli/ ;  and  any  man 
who  questions  any  of  them  is  denounced  as  an  Abolitionist,  a  Free-soiler,  a  fanatic. 
The  propositions  are,  first,  that  the  primaiy  object  of  all  government  at  its  original 
institution  is  the  protection  of  person  and  property ;  second,  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  declares  that  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
the  privileges  aud  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States ;  and  that,  therefore, 
thirdly,  all  State  laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the  citizens  of 
one  State  from  settling  in  another  with  their  slave  property,  and  especially  declar- 
ing it  forfeited,  are  direct  viohxtions  of  the  original  intention  of  the  government  and 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and,  fourth,  that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves 
of  the  Northern  States  was  a  gi*oss  outrage  of  the  rights  of  pi'operty,  inasmuch  as 
it  was  involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of  the  owner. 

"Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the  'Union'  on  the  17th  of 
November,  and  on  the  18th  appeared  the  first  article  giving  the  adhesion  of  the 
*  Union  '  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution.     It  was  in  these  words  :  — 

"  '  Kansas  and  her  Constitution.  —  The  vexed  question  is  settled.  The  problem 
is  solved.  The  dead  point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble  to  Kansas  affairs 
is  over  and  gone  '  — 

"  And  a  column  nearly  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when  you  come  to  look  into  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  you  find  the  same  doctrine  incoi'porated  in  it  which  was  put 
forth  editorially  in  the  '  Union.'     What  is  it  ? 

"  'Article  7,  Section  1.  The  right  .of  property  is  before  and  higher  than  any 
constitutional  sanction  ;  and  the  right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its 
increase  is  the  same  and  as  inviolable  as  the  right  of  the  owner  of  any  property 
Avhatever.' 

"  Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  Coustitution  may  be  amended  after 
1864  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 


100  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

"  '  But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  aflfect  the  right  of  property  in  the  ownership 
of  slaves.' 

"  It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecomptou  Constitution  that  they  are 
identical  in  spirit  with  the  authoritative  article  in  the  Washington  '  Union  '  of  the  day 
previous  to  its  indorsement  of  this  Constitution." 

I  pass  over  some  portions  of  the  speech,  and  I  hope  that  any  one  who  feels 
interested  in  this  matter  will  read  the  entire  section  of  the  speech,  and  see 
whether  I  do  the  Judge  injustice.     He  proceeds  :  — 

"When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  '  Union  '  of  the  17th  of  November,  followed  by 
the  glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  18th  of  November,  and  this 
clause  in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doctrine  that  a  State  has  no  right  to  prohibit 
slavery  within  its  limits,  I  saw  that  thei'e  was  a  fatal  blow  being  struck  at  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  States  of  this  Union." 

I  stop  the  quotation  there,  again  requesting  that  it  may  all  be  read.  I  have 
read  all  of  the  portion  I  desire  to  comment  upon.  What  is  this  charge  tliat 
the  Judge  thinks  I  must  have  a  very  corrupt  heart  to  make  ?  It  was  a  pur- 
pose on  the  part  of  certain  high  functionaries  to  make  it  impossible  for  the 
people  of  one  State  to  prohibit  the  people  of  any  other  State  from  entering  it 
with  their  "  property,"  so  called,  and  making  it  a  Slave  State.  In  other  words, 
it  was  a  charge  implying  a  design  to  make  the  institution  of  slavery  national. 
And  now  I  ask  your  attention  to  what  Judge  Douglas  has  himself  done  here. 
I  know  he  made  that  part  of  the  speech  as  a  reason  why  he  had  refused  to 
vote  for  a  certain  man  for  public  printer  ;  but  when  we  get  at  it,  the  charge 
itself  is  the  very  one  I  made  against  him,  that  he  thinks  I  am  so  corrupt  for 
uttering.  Now,  whom  does  he  make  that  charge  against  ?  Does  he  make  it 
against  that  newspaper  editor  merely  ?  No  ;  he  says  it  is  identical  in  spirit 
with  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  so  the  framers  of  that  Constitution  a^e 
brought  in  with  the  editor  of  the  newspaper  in  that  "  fatal  blow  being  struck." 
He  did  not  call  it  a  "  conspiracy."  In  his  language,  it  is  a  "  fatal  blow  being 
struck."  And  if  the  words  carry  the  meaning  better  when  changed .  from  a 
"  conspiracy  "  into  a  "fatal  blow  being  struck,"  I  will  change  iiitj  expression, 
and  call  it  "  fatal  blow  being  struck."  We  see  the  charge  made  not  merely 
against  the  editor  of  the  "  Union,"  but  all  the  framers  of  the  Lecompton  Con- 
stitution ;  and  not  only  so,  but  the  article  was  an  mifhoritative  article.  By 
whose  authority  ?  Is  there  any  question  but  he  means  it  was  by  the  authority 
of  the  President  and  his  Cabinet,  — the  Administration  ? 

Is  there  any  sort  of  question  but  he  means  to  make  that  charge  ?  Then 
there  are  the  editors  of  the  "  Union,"  the  framers  of  the  Lecompton  Constitu- 
tion, the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  Cabinet,  and  all  the  supporters 
of  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  in  Congress  and  out  of  Congress,  who  are  all 
involved  in  this  "  fatal  blow  being  struck."  I  commend  to  Judge  Douglas's 
consideration  the  question  of  how  corrupt  a  maris  heart  tmist  he  to  make  such  a 
charge  ! 

Now,  my  friends,  I  have  but  one  branch  of  the  subject,  in  the  little  time  I 
have  left,  to  which  to  call  your  attention  ;  and  as  I  shall  come  to  a  close  at  the 
end  of  that  branch,  it  is  probable  that  I  shall  not  occupy  quite  all  the  time 
allotted  to  me.  Although  on  these  questions  I  would  like  to  talk  twice  as  long 
as  I  have,  I  could  not  enter  upon  another  head  and  discuss  it  properly  without 
running  over  my  time.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  people  here  assembled  and 
elsewhere  to  the  course  that  Judge  Douglas  is  pursuing  every  day  as  bearing 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  101 

upon  this  question  of  making  slavery  national.  Not  going  back  to  the  records, 
but  taking  the  speeches  he  makes,  the  speeches  he  made  yesterday  and  day 
before,  and  makes  constantly  all  over  the  country, —  I  ask  your  attention  to  them. 
In  the  first  place,  what  is  necessary  to  make  the  institution  national  ?  Not  war. 
There  is  no  danger  that  the  people  of  Kentucky  will  shoulder  their  muskets, 
and,  with  a  young  nigger  stuck  on  every  bayonet,  march  into  Illinois  and 
force  them  upon  us.  There  is  no  danger  of  our  going  over  there  and  making 
war  upon  them.  Then  what  is  necessary  for  the  nationalization  of  slavery  ? 
It  is  simply  the  next  Dred  Scott  decision.  It  is  merely  for  the  Supreme 
Court  to  decide  that  no  State  under  the  Constitution  can  exclude  it,  just  as 
they  have  already  decided  that  under  the  Constitution  neither  Congress  nor  the 
Territorial  Legislature  can  do  it.  When  that  is  decided  and  acquiesced  in, 
the  whole  thing  is  done.  This  being  true,  and  this  being  the  way,  as  I  think, 
that  slavery  is  to  be  made  national,  let  us  consider  what  Judge  Douglas  is 
doing  every  day  to  that  end.  In  the  first  place,  let  us  see  what  influence  he 
is  exerting  on  public  sentiment.  In  this  and  like  communities,  public  senti- 
ment is  everything.  With  public  sentiment,  nothing  can  fail ;  without  it, 
nothing  can  succeed.  Consequently,  he  who  moulds  public  sentiment,  goes 
deeper  than  he  who  enacts  statutes  or  pronounces  decisions.  He  makes  statutes 
and  decisions  possible  or  impossible  to  be  executed.  This  must  be  borne  in 
mind,  as  also  the  additional  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  is  a  man  of  vast  influence, 
so  great  that  it  is  enough  for  many  men  to  profess  to  believe  anything,  when 
they  once  find  out  that  Judge  Douglas  professes  to  believe  it.  Consider  also 
the  attitude  he  occupies  at  the  head  of  a  large  party,  —  a  party  which  he 
claims  has  a  majority  of  all  the  voters  in  the  country.  This  man  sticks  to  a 
decision  which  forbids  the  people  of  a  Territory  from  excluding  slavery,  and 
he  does  so,  not  because  he  says  it  is  right  in  itself,  — he  does  not  give  any 
opinion  on  that,  —  but  because  it  has  been  decided  hy  the  court ;  and  being 
decided  by  the  court,  he  is,  and  you  are,  bound  to  take  it  in  your  political 
action  as  laiv,  not  that  he  judges  at  all  of  its  merits,  but  because  a  decision  of 
the  court  is  to  him  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  He  places  it  on  that  ground 
alone ;  and  you  will  bear  in  mind  that  thus  committing  himself  unreservedly 
to  this  decision  commits  him  to  the  next  one  just  as  firmly  as  to  this.  He  did 
not  commit  himself  on  account  of  the  merit  or  demerit  of  the  decision,  but 
it  is  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  The  next  decision,  as  much  as  this,  will  be  a 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  There  is  nothing  that  can  divert  or  turn  him  away 
from  this  decision.  It  is  nothing  that  I  point  out  to  him  that  his  great  proto- 
type. General  Jackson,  did  not  believe  in  the  binding  force  of  decisions.  It 
is  nothing  to  him  that  Jefferson  did  not  so  believe.  I  have  said  that  I  have 
often  heard  him  approve  of  Jackson's  course  in  disregarding  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  pronouncing  a  National  Bank  constitutional.  He  says,  I 
did  not  hear  him  say  so.  He  denies  the  accuracy  of  my  recollection.  I  say 
he  ought  to  know  better  than  I,  but  I  will  make  no  question  about  this  thing, 
though  it  still  seems  to  me  that  I  heard  him  say  it  twenty  times.  I  will  tell 
him,  though,  that  he  now  claims  to  stand  on  the  Cincinnati  platform,  which 
affirms  that  Congress  ccmnot  charter  a  National  Bank,  in  the  teeth  of  that  old 
standing  decision  that  Congress  can  charter  a  bank.  And  I  remind  him  of 
another  piece  of  history  on  the  question  of  respect  for  judicial  decisions,  and 
it  is  a  piece  of  Illinois  history  belonging  to  a  time  when  the  large  party  to 
which  Judge  Douglas  belonged  were  displeased  with  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Illinois,  because  they  had  decided  that  a  Governor  could  not  remove 
a  Secretary  of   State.     You  will  find  the  whole  story  in  Ford's   History  of 


102  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Illinois,  aud  I  know  that  Judge  Douglas  will  not  deny  that  he  was  then  in 
favor  of  overslaughing  that  decision  by  the  mode  of  adding  five  new  judges,  so 
as  to  vote  down  the  four  old  ones.  Not  only  so,  but  it  ended  in  the  Judge's 
sitting  down  on  that  very  bench  as  one  of  the  five  new  judges  to  break  dotun  the 
four  old  ones.  It  was  in  this  way  precisely  that  he  got  his  title  of  judge. 
Now,  when  the  Judge  tells  me  that  men  appointed  conditionally  to  sit  as 
members  of  a  court  will  have  to  be  catechised  beforehand  upon  some  subject, 
I  say,  "  You  know,  Judge  ;  you  have  tried  it."  When  he  says  a  court  of  this 
kind  will  lose  the  confidence  of  all  men,  will  be  prostituted  and  disgraced  by 
such  a  proceeding,  I  say,  "  You  know  best,  Judge ;  you  have  been  through  the 
mill."  But  I  cannot  shake  Judge  Douglas's  teeth  loose  from  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  Like  some  obstinate  animal  (I  mean  no  disrespect)  that  will  hang 
on  when  he  has  once  got  his  teeth  fixed,  you  may  cut  off  a  leg,  or  you  may 
tear  away  an  arm,  still  he  will  not  relax  his  hold.  And  so  I  may  point  out  to 
the  Judge,  and  say  that  he  is  bespattered  all  over,  from  the  beginning  of  his 
political  life  to  the  present  time,  with  attacks  upon  judicial  decisions ;  I  may 
cut  off  limb  after  limb  of  his  public  record,  and  strive  to  wrench  him  from  a 
single  dictum  of  the  court,  —  yet  I  cannot  divert  him  from  it.  He  hangs,  to 
the  last,  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  These  things  show  there  is  a  purpose 
strong  as  death  and  eternity  for  which  he  adheres  to  this  decision,  and  for 
which  he  will  adhere  to  all  other  decisions  of  the  same  court. 
A  Hibernian :  "  Give  us  something  besides  Drid  Scott." 
Mr.  Lincoln :  Yes  ;  no  doubt  you  want  to  hear  something  that  don't  hurt. 
Now,  having  spoken  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  one  more  word,  and  I  am 
done.  Henry  Clay,  my  beau-ideal  of  a  statesman,  the  man  for  whom  I  fought 
all  my  humble  life,  —  Henry  Clay  once  said  of  a  class  of  men  who  would 
repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation  that  they  must,  if 
they  would  do  this,  go  back  to  the  era  of  our  Independence,  and  muzzle  the 
cannon  which  thunders  its  annual  joyous  return ;  they  must  blow  out  the 
moral  lights  around  us  ;  they  must  penetrate  the  human  soul,  and  eradicate 
there  the  love  of  liberty ;  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  could  they  perpetuate 
slavery  in  this  country  !  To  my  thinking,  Judge  Douglas  is,  by  his  example 
and  vast  influence,  doing  that  very  thing  in  this  community,  when  he  says 
that  the  negro  has  nothing  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Henry  Clay 
plainly  understood  the  contrary.  Judge  Douglas  is  going  back  to  the  era  of 
our  Eevolution,  and,  to  the  extent  of  his  ability,  muzzling  the  cannon  which 
thunders  its  annual  joyous  return.  When  he  invites  any  people,  willing  to 
have  slavery,  to  establish  it,  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral  lights  around  us. 
When  he  says  he  "  cares  not  whether  slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up,"  — 
that  it  is  a  sacred  right  of  self-government,  —  lie  is,  in  my  judgment,  pene- 
trating the  human  soul  and  eradicating  the  light  of  reason  and  the  love  of 
liberty  in  this  American  people.  And  now  I  will  only  say  that  when,  by  all 
tliese  means  aud  appliances,  Judge  Douglas  shall  succeed  in  bringing  public 
sentiment  to  an  exact  accordance  with  his  own  views ;  when  these  vast  assem- 
blages shall  echo  back  all  these  sentiments ;  when  they  shall  come  to  repeat 
his  views  and  to  avow  his  principles,  and  to  say  all  that  he  says  on  these 
mighty  questions, — then  it  needs  only  the  formality  of  the  second  Dred  Scott 
decision,  which  he  indorses  in  advance,  to  make  slavery  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
States,  old  as  well  as  new.  North  as  well  as  South. 

My  friends,  that  ends  the  chapter.     The  Judge  can  take  his  half-hour. 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  103 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 


Fellow-Citizens:  I  will  now  occupy  the  half-hour  allotted  to  me  in  reply- 
ing to  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  first  point  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention  is,  as 
to  what  I  said  about  the  organization  of  the  Eepublican  party  in  1854,  and 
the  platform  that  was  formed  on  the  5th  of  October  of  that  year,  and  I  will 
then  put  the  question  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  whether  or  not  he  approves  of  each 
article  in  that  platform,  and  ask  for  a  specific  answer,  I  did  not  charge  him 
with  being  a  member  of  the  committee  which  reported  that  platform.  I 
charged  that  that  platform  was  the  platform  of  the  Eepublican  party  adopted 
by  them.  The  fact  that  it  was  the  platform  of  the  Eepublican  party  is  not 
denied ;  but  Mr.  Lincoln  now  says  that  although  his  name  was  on  the  com- 
mittee which  reported  it,  that  he  does  not  think  he  was  there,  but  thinks  he 
was  in  Tazewell,  holding  court.  Now,  I  want  to  remind  Mr.  Lincoln  that  he 
was  at  Springfield  w^hen  that  Convention  was  held  and  those  resolutions 
adopted. 

The  point  I  am  going  to  remind  Mr.  Lincoln  of  is  this :  that  after  I  had 
made  my  speech  in  1854,  during  the  fair,  he  gave  me  notice  that  he  was  going 
to  reply  to  me  the  next  day.  I  was  sick  at  the  time,  but  I  stayed  over  in 
Springfield  to  hear  his  reply  and  to  reply  to  him.  On  that  da}^  this  very  Con- 
vention, the  resolutions  adopted  by  which  I  have  read,  was  to  meet  in  the 
Senate  chamber.  He  spoke  in  the  hall  of  the  House  ;  and  when  he  got 
through  his  speech  —  my  recollection  is  distinct,  and  1  shall  never  forget  it  — 
Mr.  Codding  walked  in  as  I  took  the  stand  to  rej^ly,  and  gave  notice  that  the 
Eepublican  State  Convention  would  meet  instantly  in  the  Senate  chamber, 
and  called  upon  the  Eepublicans  to  retire  there  and  go  into  this  very  Con- 
vention, instead  of  remaining  and  listening  to  me. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  selected  by  the  very  men  who  made 
the  Eepublican  organization,  on  that  day,  to  reply  to  me.  He  spoke  for  them 
and  for  that  party,  and  he  was  the  leader  of  the  party ;  and  on  the  very  day 
he  made  his  speech  in  reply  to  me,  preaching  up  this  same  doctrine  of  negro 
equality  under  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  this  Eepublican  party  met  in 
Convention.  Another  evidence  that  he  was  acting  in  concert  with  them  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  that  Convention  waited  an  hour  after  its  time  of 
meeting  to  hear  Lincoln's  speech,  and  Codding,  one  of  their  leading  men, 
marched  in  the  moment  Lincoln  got  through,  and  gave  notice  that  they  did 
not  want  to  hear  me,  and  would  proceed  with  the  business  of  the  Convention. 
Still  another  fact.  I  have  here  a  newspaper  printed  at  Springfield,  Mr. 
Lincoln's  own  town,  in  October,  1854,  a  few  days  afterward,  publishing  these 
resolutions,  charging  Mr.  Lincoln  with  entertaining  these  sentiments,  and  try- 
ing to  prove  that  they  w^ere  also  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Yates,  then  candidate 
for  Congress.  This  has  been  published  on  Mr.  Lincoln  over  and  over  again, 
and  never  before  has  he  denied  it. 

But,  my  friends,  this  denial  of  his  that  he  did  not  act  on  the  committee,  is 
a  miserable  quibble  to  avoid  the  main  issue,  which  is,  that  this  Eepublican 
platform  declares  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law.  Has  Lincoln  answered  whether  he  indorsed  that  or  not  ?  I  called  his 
attention  to  it  when  I  first  addressed  you,  and  asked  him  for  an  answer,  and  I 
then  predicted  that  he  w  ould  not  answer.  How  does  he  answer  ?  Why,  that 
he  was  not  on  the  committee  that  wrote  the  resolutions.  I  then  repeated  the 
next  proposition  contained  in  the  resolutions,  which  was  to  restrict  slavery  in 


104  DEBATES    BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

those  States  in  which  it  exists,  and  asked  him  whether  he  indorsed  it.  Does 
he  answer  yes,  or  no  ?  He  says  in  reply,  "  I  was  not  on  the  committee  at  the 
time  ;  I  was  up  in  TazewelL"  The  next  question  I  put  to  him  was,  whether 
he  was  in  favor  of  prohibiting  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  into  the 
Union.  I  put  the  question  to  him  distinctly,  whether,  if  the  people  of  the 
Territory,  when  they  had  sufficient  population  to  make  a  State,  should  form 
their  Constitution  recognizing  slavery,  he  would  vote  for  or  against  its  admis- 
sion. He  is  a  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  and  it  is  possible,  if  he 
should  be  elected,  that  he  would  have  to  vote  directly  on  that  question.  I 
asked  him  to  answer  me  and  you,  whether  he  would  vote  to  admit  a  State  into 
the  Union,  with  slavery  or  without  it,  as  its  own  people  might  choose.  He 
did  not  answer  that  question.  He  dodges  that  question  also,  vmder  the  cover 
that  he  was  not  on  the  committee  at  the  time,  that  he  was  not  present  when 
the  platform  was  made.  I  want  to  know  if  he  should  happen  to  be  in  the 
Senate  when  a  State  applied  for  admission,  with  a  Constitution  acceptable  to 
her  own  people,  he  would  vote  to  admit  that  State,  if  slavery  was  one  of  its 
institutions.     He  avoids  the  answer. 

It  is  true  he  gives  the  Abolitionists  to  understand  by  a  hint  that  he  would 
not  vote  to  admit  such  a  State.  And  why  ?  He  goes  on  to  say  that  the  man 
who  would  talk  about  giving  each  State  the  right  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  it 
pleased,  was  akin  to  the  man  who  would  muzzle  the  guns  which  thundered 
forth  the  annual  joyous  return  of  the  day  of  our  Independence.  He  says  that 
that  kind  of  talk  is  casting  a  blight  on  the  glory  of  this  country.  What  is  the 
meaninfj  of  that  ?  That  he  is  not  in  favor  of  each  State  to  have  the  ri^ht  of 
doing  as  it  pleases  on  the  slavery  question  ?  I  will  put  the  question  to  him 
aerain  and  acrain,  and  I  intend  to  force  it  out  of  him. 

Then,  again,  this  platform,  which  was  made  at  Springfield  by  his  own  party 
when  he  was  its  acknowledged  head,  provides  that  Eepublicans  will  insist  on 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  I  asked  Lincoln  speci- 
fically whether  he  agreed  with  them  in  that  ?  ["  Did  you  get  an  answer  ? "] 
He  is  afraid  to  answer  it.  He  knows  I  will  trot  him  down  to  Egypt.  I  intend 
to  make  him  answer  there,  or  I  will  show  the  people  of  Illinois  that  he  does 
not  intend  to  answer  these  questions.  The  Convention  to  which  I  have  been 
alluding  goes  a  little  further,  and  pledges  itself  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the 
Territories  over  which  the  General  Government  has  exclusive  jurisdiction 
north  of  36  deg.  30  min.,  as  well  as  south.  Now,  I  want  to  know  whether  he 
approves  that  provision.  I  want  him  to  answer,  and  when  he  does,  I  want  to 
know  his  opinion  on  another  point,  which  is,  whether  he  will  redeem  the 
pledge  of  this  platform,  and  resist  the  acquirement  of  any  more  territory 
unless  slavery  therein  shall  be  forever  prohibited.  I  want  him  to  answer  this 
last  question.  Each  of  the  questions  I  have  put  to  him  are  practical  questions, 
—  questions  based  upon  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Black  Eepublican 
party ;  and  I  want  to  know  whether  he  is  the  first,  last,  and  only  choice  of  a 
party  with  whom  he  does  not  agree  in  principle.  He  does  not  deny  but  that 
that  principle  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Eepublican  party;  he  does 
not  deny  that  the  whole  Eepublican  party  is  pledged  to  it ;  he  does  not  deny 
that  a  man  who  is  not  faithful  to  it  is  faithless  to  the  Eepublican  party ;  and 
now  I  want  to  know  whether  that  party  is  unanimously  in  favor  of  a  man  who 
does  not  adopt  that  creed  and  agree  with  them  in  their  principles ;  I  want  to 
know  whether  the  man  who  does  not  a^ree  with  them,  and  who  is  afraid  to 
avow  his  differences,  and  who  dodges  the  issue,  is  the  first,  last,  and  only  choice 
of  the  Eepublican  party. 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  105 

A  voice :  How  about  the  conspiracy  ? 

Mr.  Douglas  :  Never  mind,  I  will  come  to  that  soon  enough.  But  the 
platform  which  I  have  read  to  you  not  only  lays  down  these  principles,  but 
it  adds  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That,  in  furtherance  of  these  principles,  we  will  use  such  constitutional 
and  lawful  means  as  shall  seem  best  adapted  to  their  accomplishment,  and  that  we 
will  support  no  man  for  office,  under  the  General  or  State  Government,  who  is  not 
positively  and  fully  committed  to  the  support  of  these  principles,  and  whose  personal 
character  and  conduct  is  not  a  guarantee  that  he  is  reliable,  and  who  shall  not  have 
abjured  old  party  allegiance  and  ties." 

The  Black  Eepublican  party  stands  pledged  that  they  will  never  support 
Lincoln  until  he  has  pledged  himself  to  that  platform  ;  but  he  cannot  devise 
his  answer,  he  has  not  made  up  his  mind  whether  he  will  or  not.  He  talked 
about  everything  else  he  could  think  of  to  occupy  his  hour  and  a  half,  and 
when  he  could  not  think  of  anything  more  to  say,  without  an  excuse  for 
refusing  to  answer  these  questions,  he  sat  down  long  before  his  time  was  out. 

In  relation  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  charge  of  conspiracy  against  me,  I  have  a  word 
to  say.  In  his  speech  to-day  he  quotes  a  playful  part  of  his  speech  at  Spring- 
field, about  Stephen,  and  James,  and  Franklin,  and  Roger,  and  says  that  I  did 
not  take  exception  to  it.  I  did  not  answer  it,  and  he  repeats  it  again.  I  did 
not  /take  exception  to  this  figure  of  his.  He  has  a  right  to  be  as  playful  as  he 
pleases  in  throwing  his  arguments  together,  and  I  will  not  object ;  but  I  did  take 
objection  to  his  second  Springfield  speech,  in  which  he  stated  that  he  intended 
his  first  speech  as  a  charge  of  corruption  or  conspiracy  against  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  President  Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself. 
That  gave  the  offensive  character  to  the  charge.  He  then  said  that  vvhen  he 
made  it  he  did  not  know  whether  it  was  true  or  not ;  but  inasmuch  as  Judo-e 
Douglas  had  not  denied  it,  although  he  had  replied  to  the  other  parts  of  his 
speech  three  times,  he  repeated  it  as  a  charge  of  conspiracy  against  me,  thus 
charging  me  with  moral  turpitude.  When  he  put  it  in  that  form,  I  did  say 
that,  inasmuch  as  he  repeated  the  charge  simply  because  I  had  not  denied  it, 
I  would  deprive  him  of  the  opportunity  of  ever  repeating  it  again,  by  declaring 
that  it  was,  in  all  its  bearings,  an  infamous  lie.  He  says  he  will  repeat  it  until 
I  answer  his  folly  and  nonsense  about  Stephen,  and  Franklin,  and  Roger,  and 
Bob,  and  James. 

He  studied  that  out,  prepared  that  one  sentence  with  the  greatest  care, 
committed  it  to  memory,  and  put  it  in  his  first  Springfield  speech  ;  and  now 
he  carries  that  speech  around,  and  reads  that  sentence  to  show  how  pretty  it 
is.  His  vanity  is  wounded  because  I  will  not  go  into  that  beautiful  figure  of 
his  about  the  building  of  a  house.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  that  I  am  not  green 
enough  to  let  him  make  a  charge  which  he  acknowledges  he  does  not  know  to 
be  true,  and  then  take  up  my  time  in  answering  it,  when  I  know  it  to  be  false, 
and  nobody  else  knows  it  to  be  true. 

I  have  not  brought  a  charge  of  moral  turpitude  against  him.  When  he, 
or  any  other  man,  brings  one  against  me,  instead  of  disproving  it,  I  will  say 
that  it  is  a  lie,  and  let  him  prove  it  if  he  can. 

I  have  lived  twenty-five  years  in  Illinois,  I  have  served  you  with  all  the 
fidelity  and  ability  which  I  possess,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  is  at  liberty  to  attack  my 
public  action,  my  votes,  and  my  conduct ;  but  when  he  dares  to  attack  my  moral 
integrity  by  a  charge  of  conspiracy  between  myself.  Chief  Justice  Taney  and 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  two  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  I  will  repel  it. 

14 


106  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Mr.  Lincoln  lias  not  character  enough  for  integrity  and  truth,  merely  on 
his  own  ipse  dixit,  to  arraign  President  Buchanan,  President  Pierce,  and  nine 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  not  'one  of  whom  would  be  complimented  by 
being  put  on  an  equality  with  him.  There  is  an  unpardonable  presumption  in 
a  man  putting  himself  up  before  thousands  of  people,  and  pretending  that  his 
ipse  dixit,  without  proof,  without  fact,  and  without  truth,  is  enough  to  bring 
down  and  destroy  the  purest  and  best  of  living  men. 

Fellow-citizens,  my  time  is  fast  expiring ;  I  must  pass  on.  Mr.  Lincoln 
wants  to  know  why  I  voted  against  Mr.  Chase's  amendment  to  the  Nebraska 
bill.  I  will  tell  him.  In  the  first  place,  the  bill  already  conferred  all  the 
power  which  Congress  had,  by  giving  the  people  the  whole  power  over  the 
subject.  Chase  offered  a  proviso  that  they  might  abolish  slavery,  which  by 
implication  would  convey  the  idea  that  they  could  prohibit  by  not  introducing 
that  institution.  General  Cass  asked  him  to  modify  his  amendment  so  as  to 
provide  that  the  people  might  either  prohibit  or  introduce  slavery,  and  thus 
make  it  fair  and  equal.  Chase  refused  to  so  modify  his  proviso,  and  then 
General  Cass  and  all  the  rest  of  us  voted  it  clown.  Tliose  facts  appear  on  the 
journals  and  debates  of  Congress,  where  Mr.  Lincoln  found  the  charge ;  and 
if  he  had  told  the  whole  truth,  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  for  me  to 
occupy  your  time  in  explaining  the  matter. 

Mr.  Lincoln  wants  to  know  why  the  word  "  State,"  as  well  as  "  Territory," 
was  put  into  the  Nebraska  bill.  I  will  tell  him.  It  was  put  there  to  meet 
just  such  false  arguments  as  he  has  been  adducing.  That  first,  not  only  the 
people  of  the  Territories  should  do  as  they  pleased,  but  that  when  they  come 
to  be  admitted  as  States,  they  should  come  into  the  Union  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  the  people  determined.  I  meant  to  knock  in  the  head  this  Aboli- 
tion doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln's,  that  there  shall  be  no  more  Slave  States,  even 
if  the  people  want  them.  And  it  does  not  do  for  him  to  say,  or  for  any  other 
Black  Eepublican  to  say,  that  there  is  nobody  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  no 
more  Slave  States,  and  that  nobody  wants  to  interfere  with  the  right  of  the 
people  to  do  as  they  please.  What  was  the  origin  of  the  Missouri  difficulty 
and  the  Missouri  Compromise  ?  The  people  of  IMissouri  formed  a  Constitu- 
tion as  a  Slave  State,  and  asked  admission  into  the  Union ;  but  the  Free-soil 
party  of  the  North,  being  in  a  majority,  refused  to  admit  her  because  she  had 
slavery  as  one  of  her  iustitutions.  Hence  this  first  slavery  agitation  arose  upon 
a  State,  and  not  upon  a  Territory ;  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  know  why 
the  word  "  State  "  was  placed  in  the  Kansas- Nebraska  bill.  The  whole  Aboli- 
tion agitation  arose  on  that  doctrine  of  prohibiting  a  State  from  coming  in 
with  slavery  or  not,  as  it  pleased,  and  that  same  doctrine  is  here  in  this  Piepub- 
lican  platform  of  1854  ;  it  has  never  been  repealed  ;  and  every  Black  Eepubli- 
lican  stands  pledged  by  that  platform  never  to  vote  for  any  man  who  is  not  in 
favor  of  it.  Yet  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  know  that  there  is  a  man  in  the  world 
who  is  in  favor  of  preventing  a  State  from  coming  in  as  it  pleases,  not- 
withstanding. The  Springfield  platform  says  tliat  they,  the  Eepublican 
party,  will  not  allow  a  State  to  come  in  under  such  circumstances.  He  is  an 
ignorant  man. 

Now  you  see  that  upon  these  very  points  I  am  as  far  from  bringing  Mr. 
Lincoln  up  to  the  line  as  I  ever  was  before.  He  does  not  want  to  avow  his 
principles.  I  do  want  to  avow  mine,  as  clear  as  sunlight  in  midday.  Democ- 
racy is  founded  upon  the  eternal  principle  of  right.  The  plainer  these  princi- 
ples are  avowed  before  the  people,  the  stronger  will  be  the  support  which  they 
will  receive.     I  only  wish  I  had  the  power  to  make  them  so  clear  that  they 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  107 

would  shine  in  the  heavens  for  every  man,  woman,  and  child  to  read.  The 
first  of  those  principles  that  I  would  proclaim  would  be  in  opposition  to  Mr. 
Lincoln's  doctrine  of  uniformity  between  the  different  States,  and  I  would 
declare  instead  the  sovereign  right  of  each  State  to  decide  the  slavery  question 
as  well  as  all  other  domestic  questions  for  themselves,  without  interference 
from  any  other  State  or  power  whatsoever. 

When  that  principle  is  recognized,  you  will  have  peace  and  harmony  and 
fraternal  feeling  between  all  the  States  of  this  Union ;  until  you  do  recognize 
that  doctrine,  there  will  be  sectional  warfare  agitating  and  distracting  the 
country.  What  does  Mr.  Lincoln  propose  ?  He  says  that  the  Union  cannot 
exist  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States.  If  it  cannot  endure  thus  divided, 
then  he  must  strive  to  make  them  all  free  or  all  slave,  wliich  will  inevitably 
bring  about  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  told  that  my  time  is  out,  and  I  am  obliged  to  stop. 


SECOND  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  FREEPORT, 

August  27,  1858. 

MR.  LINCOLN'S  SPEECH. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  On  Saturday  last,  Judge  Douglas  and  myself 
first  met  in  public  discussion.  He  spoke  one  hour,  I  an  hour  and  a  half,  and 
he  replied  for  half  an  hour.  The  order  is  now  reversed.  I  am  to  speak  an 
hour,  he  an  hour  and  a  half,  and  then  I  am  to  reply  for  half  an  hour.  I  pro- 
pose to  devote  myself  during  the  first  hour  to  the  scope  of  what  was  brought 
within  the  range  of  his  half-hour  speech  at  Ottawa.  Of  course  there  was 
brought  within  the  scope  in  that  half-hour's  speech  something  of  his  own  open- 
ing speech.  In  the  course  of  that  opening  argument  Judge  Douglas  proposed 
to  me  seven  distinct  interrogatories.  In  my  speech  of  an  hour  and  a  half,  I 
attended  to  some  other  parts  of  his  speech,  and  incidentally,  as  I  thought, 
answered  one  of  the  interrogatories  then.  I  then  distinctly  intimated  to  him 
that  I  would  answer  the  rest  of  his  interrogatories,  on  condition  only  that  he 
should  agree  to  answer  as  many  for  me.  He  made  no  intimation  at  the  time  of 
the  proposition,  nor  did  he  in  his  reply  allude  at  all  to  that  suggestion  of  mine. 
I  do  him  no  injustice  in  saying  that  he  occupied  at  least  half  of  his  reply  in 
dealing  with  me  as  though  I  had  refused  to  answer  his  interrogatories.  I  now 
propose  that  I  will  answer  any  of  the  interrogatories,  upon  condition  that  he 
will  answer  questions  from  me  not  exceeding  the  same  number.  I  give  him 
an  opportunity  to  respond.  The  Judge  remains  silent.  I  now  say  that  I  will 
answer  his  interrogatories,  whether  he  answers  mine  or  not ;  and  that  after  I 
have  done  so,  I  shall  propound  mine  to  him. 

I  have  supposed  myself,  since  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  at 
Bloomington,  in  May,  1856,  bound  as  a  party  man  by  the  platforms  of  the 
party,  then  and  since.  If  in  any  interrogatories  which  I  shall  answer  I  go 
beyond  the  scope  of  what  is  within  these  platforms,  it  will  be  perceived  that 
no  one  is  responsible  but  myself 

Having  said  thus  much,  I  will  take  up  the  Judge's  interrogatories  as  I  find 
them  printed  in  the  Chicago  "  Times,"  and  answer  them  seriatim:     In  order 


108  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

that  there  may  be  no  mistake  about  it,  I  have  copied  the  interrogatories  in 
writing,  and  also  my  answers  to  them.  The  first  one  of  these  interrogatories 
is  in  tliese  words  :  — 

Question  1.  —  "I  desire  to  know  whether  Lincohi  to-day  stands,  as  he  did 
in  1854,  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  ?  " 

Answer.  — I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  in  favor  of  the  unconditional 
repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

Q.  2.  "  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to-day,  as  he  did 
in  1854,  against  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union,  even 
if  the  people  want  them  ? " 

A.  I  do  not  now,  or  ever  did,  stand  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any 
more  Slave  States  into  the  Union. 

Q.  3.  "  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission 
of  a  new  State  into  the  Union  with  such  a  Constitution  as  the  people  of  that 
State  may  see  fit  to  make  ? " 

A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the 
Union,  with  such  a  Constitution  as  the  people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to 
make. 

Q.  4.  "  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ? " 

A.  I  do  not  stand  to-day  pledged  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia. 

Q.  5.  "  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  the  prohibi- 
tion of  the  slave-trade  between  the  different  States  ? " 

A.  I  do  not  stand  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  between 
the  different  States. 

Q.  6.  '■'  I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  north  as  well  as  south  of  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise  line  ? " 

A.  I  am  impliedly,  if  not  expressly,  pledged  to  a  belief  in  the  rigJit  and 
duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  United  States  Territories. 

Q.  7.  "  I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of 
any  new  territory  unless  slavery  is  first  prohibited  therein  ?  " 

A.  I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  honest  acquisition  of  territory  ;  and,  in 
any  given  case,  I  Nvould  or  would  not  oppose  such  acquisition,  accordingly  as 
I  might  think  such  acquisition  would  or  would  not  aggravate  the  slavery 
question  among  ourselves. 

Now,  my  friends,  it  will  be  perceived,  upon  an  examination  of  these  ques- 
tions and  answers,  that  so  far  I  have  only  answered  that  I  was  not  |:>/ef/^frf  to 
this,  that,  or  the  other.  The  Judge  has  not  framed  his  interrogatories  to  ask 
me  anything  more  than  this,  and  I  have  answered  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  interrogatories,  and  have  answered  truly,  that  I  am  not  j^^cdged  at  all 
upon  any  of  the  points  to  which  I  have  answered.  But  I  am  not  disposed 
to  hang  upon  the  exact  form  of  his  interrogatory.  I  am  rather  disposed  to 
take  up  at  least  some  of  these  questions,  and  state  what  I  really  think  upon 
them. 

As  to  the  first  one,  in  regard  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  I  have  never  hesi- 
tated to  say,  and  I  do  not  now  hesitate  to  say,  that  I  think,  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  are  entitled  to 
a  Congressional  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Having  said  that,  I  have  had  nothing 
to  say  in  regard  to  the  existing  Fugitive  Slave  law,  further  than  that  I  think 
it  should  have  been  framed  so  as  to  be  free  from  some  of  the  objections  that 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  109 

pertain  to  it,  without  lessening  its  efficiency.  And  inasmuch  as  we  are  not 
now  in  an  agitation  in  regard  to  an  alteration  or  modification  of  that  law,  I 
would  not  be  the  man  to  introduce  it  as  a  new  subject  of  agitation  upon  the 
general  question  of  slavery. 

In  regard  to  the  other  question,  of  whether  I  am  pledged  to  the  admission  of 
any  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union,  I  state  to  you  very  frankly  that  I  would 
be  exceedingly  sorry  ever  to  be  put  in  a  position  of  having  to  pass  upon  that 
question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be 
another  Slave  State  admitted  into  the  Union ;  but  I  must  add  that  if  slavery 
shall  be  kept  out  of  the  Territories  during  the  territorial  existence  of  any  one 
given  Territory,  and  then  the  people  shall,  having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear 
field,  when  they  come  to  adopt  the  constitution,  do  such  an  extraordinary 
thing  as  to  adopt  a  slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence  of 
the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the  country,  but 
to  admit  them  into  the  Union. 

The  third  interrogatory  is  answered  by  the  answer  to  the  second,  it  being, 
as  I  conceive,  the  same  as  the  second. 

The  fourth  one  is  in  regard  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.  In  relation  to  that,  I  have  my  mind  very  distinctly  made  up.  I 
should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  see  slavery  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
I  believe  that  Congress  possesses  the  constitutional  power  to  abolish  it.  Yet 
as  a  member  of  Congress,  I  should  not,  with  my  present  views,  be  in  favor  of 
endeavoring  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  unless  it  would  be 
upon  these  conditions  :  First,  that  the  abolition  should  be  gradual ;  second,  that 
it  should  be  on  a  vote  of  the  majority  of  qualified  voters  in  the  District;  and 
third,  that  compensation  should  be  made  to  unwilling  owners.  With  these  three 
conditions,  I  confess  I  would  be  exceedingly  glad  to  see  Congress  abolish  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and,  in  the  language  of  Henry  Clay,  "  sweep  from 
our  capital  that  foul  blot  upon  our  nation." 

In  regard  to  the  fifth  interrogatory,  I  must  say  here,  that  as  to  the  question 
of  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  between  the  different  States,  I  can  truly 
answer,  as  I  have,  that  I  am  pledged  to  nothing  about  it.  It  is  a  subject  to 
which  I  have  not  given  that  mature  consideration  that  would  make  me  feel 
authorized  to  state  a  position  so  as  to  hold  myself  entirely  bound  by  it.  In 
other  words,  that  question  has  never  been  prominently  enougli  before  me  to 
induce  me  to  investigate  whether  we  really  have  the  constitutional  power  to 
do  it.  I  could  investigate  it  if  I  had  sufficient  time  to  bring  myself  to  a  con- 
clusion upon  that  subject ;  but  I  have  not  done  so,  and  I  say  so  frankly  to  you 
here,  and  to  Judge  Douglas.  I  must  say,  however,  that  if  I  should  be  of 
opinion  that  Congress  does  possess  the  constitutional  power  to  abolish  the 
slave-trade  among  the  different  States,  I  should  still  not  be  in  favor  of  the 
exercise  of  that  power,  unless  upon  some  conservative  principle  as  I  conceive 
it,  akin  to  what  I  have  said  in  relation  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

My  answer  as  to  whether  I  desire  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  all 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  is  full  and  explicit  within  itself,  and  can- 
not be  made  clearer  by  any  comments  of  mine.  So  I  suppose  in  regard  to  the 
question  whether  I  am  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  more  territory  unless 
slavery  is  first  prohibited  therein,  ray  answer  is  such  that  I  could  add  nothing 
by  way  of  illlustration,  or  making  myself  better  understood,  than  the  answer 
which  I  have  placed  in  writing. 

Now  in  all  this  the  Judge  has  me,  and  he  has  me  on  the  record.     I  suppose 


110  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

he  had  flattered  himself  that  I  was  really  entertaining  one  set  of  opinions  for 
one  place,  and  another  set  for  another  place ;  that  I  was  afraid  to  say  at  one 
place  what  I  uttered  at  another.  What  I  am  saying  here  I  suppose  I  say  to  a 
vast  audience  as  strongly  tending  to  Abolitionism  as  any  audience  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  and  I  believe  I  am  saying  that  which,  if  it  would  be  offensive  to 
any  persons  and  render  them  enemies  to  myself,  would  be  offensive  to  persons 
in  this  audience. 

I  now  proceed  to  propound  to  the  Judge  the  interrogatories,  so  far  as  I  have 
framed  them.  I  will  bring  forward  a  new  instalment  when  I  get  tliem  ready. 
I  will  bring  them  forward  now,  only  reaching  to  number  four. 

The  first  one  is  :  — 

Question  1.  —  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means  entirely  unobjection- 
able in  all  other  respects,  adopt  a  State  constitution,  and  ask  admission  into 
the  Union  under  it,  Icfore  they  have  the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants  accord- 
ing to  the  English  bill,  —  some  ninety-three  thousand,  —  will  you  vote  to 
admit  them  ? 

Q.  2.  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  any  lawful  way, 
against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its 
limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  constitution  ? 

Q.  3.  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that  States 
cannot  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiescing  in, 
adopting,  and  following  such  decision  as  a  nile  of  political  action  ? 

Q.  4.  Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  additional  territory,  in  disregard  of 
how  such  acquisition  may  affect  the  nation  on  the  slavery  question  ? 

As  introductory  to  these  interrogatories  which  Judge  Douglas  propounded 
to  me  at  Ottawa,  he  read  a  set  of  resolutions  which  he  said  Judge  Trumbull 
and  myself  had  participated  in  adopting,  in  the  first  Eepublican  State  Conven- 
tion, held  at  Springfield  in  October,  1854.  He  insisted  that  I  and  Judge 
Trumbull,  and  perhaps  the  entire  Eepublican  party,  were  responsible  for  the 
doctrines  contained  in  the  set  of  resolutions  which  he  read,  and  I  understand 
that  it  was  from  that  set  of  resolutions  that  he  deduced  the  interrogatories 
which  he  propounded  to  me,  using  these  resolutions  as  a  sort  of  authority  for 
propounding  those  questions  to  me.  Now,  I  say  here  to-day  that  I  do  not 
answer  his  interrogatories  because  of  their  springing  at  all  from  that  set  of 
resolutions  which  he  read.  I  answered  them  because  Judge  Douglas  thought 
fit  to  ask  them.  I  do  not  now,  nor  never  did,  recognize  any  responsibility 
upon  myself  in  that  set  of  resolutions.  When  I  replied  to  him  on  that  occa- 
sion, I  assured  him  that  I  never  had  anything  to  do  with  them.  I  repeat  here 
to-day  that  I  never  in  any  possible  form  had  anything  to  do  with  that  set  of 
resolutions.  It  turns  out,  I  believe,  that  those  resolutions  were  never  passed 
in  any  convention  held  in  Springfield.  It  turns  out  that  they  were  never  passed 
at  any  convention  or  any  public  meeting  that  I  had  any  part  in.  I  believe  it 
turns  out,  in  addition  to  all  this,  that  tliere  was  not,  in  the  fall  of  1854,  any 
convention  holding  a  session  in  Springfield,  calling  itself  a  Eepublican  State 
Convention  ;  yet  it  is  true  there  was  a  convention,  or  assemblage  of  men  call- 
ing themselves  a  convention,  at  Springfield,  that  did  pass  some  resolutions.  But 
so  little  did  I  really  know  of  the  proceedings  of  that  convention,  or  what  set  of 
resolutions  they  had  passed,  though  having  a  general  knowledge  that  there  had 
been  such  an  assembLage  of  men  there,  that  when  Judge  Douglas  read  the 
resolutions,  I  really  did  not  know  but  they  had  been  the  resolutions  passed 
then  and  there.  I  did  not  question  that  they  were  the  resolutions  adopted. 
For  I  could  not  bring  myself  to  suppose  that  Judge  Douglas  could  say  what 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  Ill 

he  did  upon  this  subject  without  Tcnowing  that  it  was  true.  I  contented  my- 
self, on  that  occasion,  with  denyin,!^,  as  I  truly  could,  all  connection  with  them, 
not  denying  or  affirming  whether  they  were  passed  at  Springfield.  Now,  it 
turns  out  that  he  had  got  hold  of  some  resolutions  passed  at  some  convention 
or  public  meeting  in  Kane  County.  I  wish  to  say  here,  that  I  don't  conceive 
that  in  any  fair  and  just  mind  this  discovery  relieves  me  at  all.  I  had  just 
as  much  to  do  with  the  convention  in  Kane  County  as  that  at  Springfield. 
I  am  just  as  much  responsible  for  the  resolutions  at  Kane  County  as  those  at 
Springfield,  —  the  amount  of  the  responsibility  being  exactly  nothing  in 
either  case;  no  more  than  there  would  be  in  regard  to  a  set  of  resolutions 
passed  in  the  moon. 

I  allude  to  this  extraordinary  matter  in  this  canvass  for  some  further  purpose 
than  anything  yet  advanced.  Judge  Douglas  did  not  make  his  statement  upon 
that  occasion  as  matters  that  he  believed  to  be  true,  but  he  stated  them  roundly 
as  hcing  true,  in  such  form  as  to  pledge  his  veracity  for  their  truth.  When  the 
whole  matter  turns  out  as  it  does,  and  when  we  consider  who  Judge  Douglas 
is,  —  that  he  is  a  distinguished  Senator  of  the  United  States ;  that  he  has 
served  nearly  twelve  years  as  such ;  that  his  character  is  not  at  all  limited  as 
an  ordinary  Senator  of  the  United  States,  but  that  his  name  has  become  of 
world-wide  renown,  —  it  is  Jiiost  extraordinary  tliat  he  should  so  far  forget  all 
the  suggestions  of  justice  to  an  adversary,  or  of  prudence  to  himself,  as  to 
venture  upon  the  assertion  of  that  which  the  slightest  investigation  would  have 
shown  him  to  be  wholly  false.  I  can  only  account  for  his  having  done  so  upon 
the  supposition  that  that  evil  genius  which  has  attended  him  through  his  life, 
giving  to  him  an  apparent  astonishing  prosperity,  such  as  to  lead  very  many 
good  men  to  doubt  there  being  any  advantage  in  virtue  over  vice,  —  I  say  I 
can  only  account  for  it  on  the  supposition  that  that  evil  genius  has  at  last 
made  up  its  mind  to  forsake  him. 

And  I  may  add  that  another  extraordinary  feature  of  the  Judge's  conduct 
in  this  canvass  —  made  more  extraordinary  by  this  incident  —  is,  that  he  is  in 
the  habit,  in  almost  all  the  speeches  he  makes,  of  charging  falsehood  upon  his 
adversaries,  myself  and  others.  I  now  ask  whether  he  is  able  to  find  in  any- 
thing that  Judge  Trumbull,  for  instance,  has  said,  or  in  anything  that  I  have 
said,  a  justification  at  all  compared  with  what  we  have,  in  this  instance,  for 
that  sort  of  vulgarity. 

I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  charging  as  a  matter  of  belief  on  my  part  that, 
in  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill  into  Congress,  there  was  a  conspiracy 
to  make  slavery  perpetual  and  national.  I  have  arranged  from  time  to  time 
the  evidence  w^hich  establishes  and  pi-oves  the  truth  of  this  charge.  I  recurred 
to  this  charge  at  Ottawa.  1  shall  not  now  have  time  to  dwell  upon  it  at  very 
great  length ;  but  inasmuch  as  Judge  Douglas,  in  his  reply  of  half  an  hour, 
made  some  points  upon  me  in  relation  to  it,  I  propose  noticing  a  few  of 
them. 

The  Judge  insists  that,  in  the  first  speech  I  made,  in  which  I  very  distinctly 
made  that  charge,  he  thought  for  a  good  while  I  was  in  fun  !  that  I  was  play- 
ful ;  that  I  was  not  sincere  about  it ;  and  that  he  only  grew  angry  and  some- 
what excited  when  he  found  that  I  insisted  upon  it  as  a  matter  of  earnestness. 
He  says  he  characterized  it  as  a  falsehood  as  far  as  I  implicated  his  moral 
character  in  that  transaction.  Well,  I  did  not  know,  till  he  presented  that 
view,  that  I  had  implicated  his  moral  character.  He  is  very  much  in  the 
habit,  when  he  argues  me  up  into  a  position  I  never  thought  of  occupying,  of 
very  cosily  saying  he  has  no  doubt  Lincoln  is  "  conscientious  "  in  saying  so. 


112  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

He  should  remember  that  I  did  not  know  but  what  he  was  altogether  "  con- 
scientious "  in  that  matter.  I  can  conceive  it  possible  for  men  to  conspire  to 
do  a  good  thing,  and  I  really  find  nothing  in  Judge  Douglas's  course  or  argu- 
ments that  is  contrary  to  or  inconsistent  with  his  belief  of  a  conspiracy  to 
nationalize  and  spread  slavery  as  being  a  good  and  blessed  thing  ;  and  so  I 
hope  he  will  understand  that  I  do  not  at  all  question  but  that  in  all  this 
matter  he  is  entirely  "  conscientious." 

But  to  draw  your  attention  to  one  of  the  points  I  made  in  this  case,  begin- 
ning at  the  beginning.  When  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  or  a  short 
time  afterward,  by  an  amendment,  I  believe,  it  was  provided  that  it  must  be 
considered  "  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  Act  not  to  legislate  slavery 
into  any  State  or  Territory,  or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in 
their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  I  have 
called  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  when  he  and  some  others  began  aro;uing 
that  they  were  giving  an  increased  degree  of  liberty  to  the  people  in  the  Ter- 
ritories over  and  above  what  they  formerly  had  on  the  question  of  slavery,  a 
question  was  raised  whether  the  law  was  enacted  to  give  such  unconditional 
liberty  to  the  people ;  and  to  test  the  sincerity  of  this  mode  of  argument,  Mr. 
Chase,  of  Ohio,  introduced  an  amendment,  in  which  he  made  the  law  —  if  the 
amendment  were  adopted  —  expressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the  Territory 
should  have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  saw  fit.  I  have  asked  atten- 
tion also  to  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  and  those  who  acted  with  him  voted 
that  amendment  down,  notwithstanding  it  expressed  exactly  the  thing  they 
said  was  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  law.  I  have  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  subsequent  times  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  been 
made,  in  which  it  has  been  declared  that  a  Territorial  Legislature  has  no  con- 
stitutional right  to  exclude  slavery.  And  I  have  argued  and  said  that  for  men 
wlio  did  intend  that  the  people  of  the  Territory  should  have  the  right  to  exclude 
slavery  absolutely  and  unconditionally,  the  voting  down  of  Chase's  amend- 
ment is  wholly  inexplicable.  It  is  a  puzzle,  a  riddle.  But  I  have  said  that 
with  men  who  did  look  forward  to  such  a  decision,  or  w^ho  had  it  in  contem- 
plation that  such  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  would  or  might  be  made, 
the  voting  down  of  that  amendment  would  be  perfectly  rational  and  intelligi- 
ble. It  would  keep  Congress  from  coming  in  collision  with  the  decision  when 
it  was  made.  Anybody  can  conceive  that  if  there  was  an  intention  or  expec- 
tation that  such  a  decision  was  to  follow,  it  would  not  be  a  very  desirable 
party  attitude  to  get  into  for  the  Supreme  Court  —  all  or  nearly  all  its  members 
belonging  to  the  same  party  —  to  decide  one  way,  when  the  party  in  Congress 
had  decided  the  other  way.  Hence  it  would  be  very  rational  for  men  expect- 
ing such  a  decision  to  keep  the  niche  in  that  law  clear  for  it.  After  pointing 
this  out,  I  tell  Judrje  Douglas  that  it  looks  to  me  as  though  here  was  the 
reason  why  Chase's  amendment  was  voted  down.  I  tell  him  that,  as  he  did  it, 
and  knows  why  he  did  it,  if  it  was  done  for  a  reason  different  from  this,  he 
knows  what  that  reason  was,  and  can  tell  us  ichat  it  was.  I  tell  him,  also,  it 
will  be  vastly  more  satisfactory  to  the  country  for  him  to  give  some  other 
plausible,  intelligible  reason  wh?/  it  was  voted  down  than  to  stand  upon  his 
dignity  and  call  people  liars.  Well,  on  Saturday  he  did  make  his  answer  ; 
and  what  do  you  think  it  was  ?  He  says  if  I  had  only  taken  upon  myself  to 
tell  the  whole  truth  about  that  amendment  of  Chase's,  no  explanation  would 
have  been  necessary  on  his  part,  —  or  words  to  that  effect.  Now,  I  say  here 
that  I  am  quite  unconscious  of  having  suppressed  anything  material  to  the 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS  113 

case,  and  I  am  very  frank  to  admit  if  there  is  any  sound  reason  other  than 
that  which  appeared  to  me  material,  it  is  quite  fair  for  him  to  present  it. 
What  reason  does  he  propose  ?     That  when  Chase  came   forward  with  his 
amendment  expressly  authorizing  the   people  to  exclude   slavery  from  the 
limits  of  every  Territory,  General  Cass  proposed  to  Chase,  if  he  (Chase),  would 
add  to  his  amendment  that  the  people  should  have  the  power  to  introduce  or 
exclude,  they  would  let  it  go.     This  is  substantially  all  of  his  reply.     And 
because  Chase  would  not  do  that,  they  voted  his  amendment  down.     Well,  it 
turns  out,  I  believe,  upon  examination,  that  General  Cass  took  some  part  in 
the  little  running  debate  upon  that  amendment,  and  then  ran  away  and  did 
not  vote  071  it  at  all.     Is  not  that  the  fact  ?     So  confident,  as  I  think,  was 
General  Cass  that  there  was  a  snake  somewhere  about,  he  chose  to  run  away 
from  the  whole  thing.     This  is  an  inference  I  draw  from  the  fact  that,  though 
he  took  part  in  the  debate,  his  name  does  not  appear  in  the  ayes  and  noes. 
But  does  Judge  Douglas's  reply  amount  to  a  satisfactory  answer  ?     [Cries  of 
"  Yes,"  "  Yes,"  and  "  No,"  "  No."]    There  is  some  little  difference  of  opinion  here. 
But  I  ask  attention  to  a  few  more  views  bearing  on  the  question  of  whetlier 
it  amounts  to  a  satisfactory  answer.     The  men  who  were  determined  that  that 
amendment  should  not  get  into  the  bill  and  spoil  the  place  where  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  was  to  come  in,  sought  an  excuse  to  get  rid  of  it  somewhere. 
One  of  these  ways  —  one  of  these  excuses  —  was  to  ask  Chase  to  add  to  his 
proposed  amendment  a  provision  that  the  people  might  introduce  slavery  if 
they  wanted  to.     They  very  well  knew  Chase  would  do  no  such  thing,  that 
Mr.  Chase  was  one  of  the  men  differing  from  them  on  the  broad  principle  of 
his  insisting  that  freedom  was  hotter  than  slavery,  —  a  man  who  would  not 
consent  to  enact  a  law,  penned  with  his  own  hand,  by  which  he  was  made  to 
recognize  slavery  on  the  one  hand,  and  liberty  on  the  other,  as  jprecisely  equal ; 
and  when  they  insisted  on  his  doing  this,  they  very  well  knew^they  insisted  on 
that  which  he  would  not  for  a  moment  think  of  doing,  and  that  they  were 
only  bluffing  him.     I  believe  (I  have  not,  since  he  made  his  answer,  had  a 
chance  to  examine  the  journals  or  "  Congressional  Globe  "  and  therefore  speak 
from  memory)  —  I  believe  the  state  of  the  bill  at  that  time,  according  to  par- 
liamentary rules,  was  such  that  no  member  could  propose  an  additional  amend- 
ment to  Chase's  amendment.     I  rather  think  this  is  the  truth,  —  the  Judge 
sliakes  his  head.     Very  well.     I  would  like  to  know,  then,  if  they  wanted 
Chase's  amendment  fixed  over,  why  somebody  else  could  not  have  offered  to  do  it  ? 
If  they  wanted  it  amended,  why  did  they  not  offer  the  amendment  ?     Why 
did  they  stand  there  taunting  and  quibbling  at  Chase  ?     Why  did  tliey  not 
2mt  it  in  themselves  ?     But  to  put  it  on  the  other  ground :  suppose  tliat  there 
was  such  an  amendment  offered,  and  Chase's  was  an  amendment  to  an  amend- 
ment ;  until  one  is  disposed  of  by  parliamentary  law,  you  cannot  pile  another 
on.     Then  all  these  gentlemen  had  to  do  was  to  vote  Chase's  on,  and  then,  in 
the  amended  form  in  which  the  whole  stood,  add  their  own  amendment  to  it, 
if  they  wanted  to  put  it  in  that  shape.     This  was  all  they  were  obliged  to  do, 
and  the  ayes  and  noes  show  that  there  were  thirty-six  who  voted  it  down, 
against  ten  who  voted  in  favor  of  it.     The  tliirty-six  held  entire  sway  and 
control.     They  could  in  some  form  or  other  have  put  that  bill  in  the  exact 
shape  they  wanted.     If  there  was  a  rule  preventing  their  amending  it  at  the 
time,  they  could  pass  that,  and  then.  Chase's  amendment  being  merged,  put  it 
in  the  shape  they  wanted.     They  did  not  choose  to  do  so,  but  they  went  into 
a  quibble  with  Chase  to  get  him  to  add  what  they  knew  he  would  not  add, 
and  because  he  would  not,  they  stand  upon  that  flimsy  pretext  for  voting  down 

15 


114  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

what  they  argued  was  tlie  meaning  and  intent  of  their  own  Lill.  They  left 
room  tliereby  for  tliis  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  goes  very  far  to  make  slavery 
national  throughout  the  United  States. 

I  pass  one  or  two  points  I  have,  because  my  time  will  very  soon  expire ; 
but  I  must  be  allowed  to  say  that  Judge  Douglas  recurs  again,  as  he  did  upon 
one  or  two  other  occasions,  to  the  enormity  of  Lincoln,  —  an  insignificant 
individual  like  Lincoln,  —  upon  his  ipse  dixit  charging  a  conspiracy  upon  a 
large  number  of  members  of  Congress,  the  Supreme  Court,  and  two  Presidents, 
to  nationalize  slavery.  I  want  to  say  that,  in  the  first  place,  I  have  made  no 
charge  of  this  sort  upon  my  ijjse  elicit.  I  have  only  arrayed  the  evidence 
tending  to  prove  it,  and  presented  it  to  tlie  understanding  of  others,  saying 
what  I  thiid<  it  proves,  but  giving  you  the  means  of  judging  whether  it  proves 
it  or  not.  This  is  precisely  what  I  have  done.  I  have  not  placed  it  upon 
my  ipse  dixit  at  all.  On  this  occasion,  I  wish  to  recall  his  attention  to  a 
piece  of  evidence  which  I  brought  forward  at  Ottawa  on  Saturday,  showing 
that  he  had  made  substantially  the  sajne  charge  against  substantially  the  same 
persons,  excluding  his  dear  self  from  the  category.  I  ask  him  to  give  some 
attention  to  the  evidence  which  I  brought  forward  that  he  himself  had  dis- 
covered a  "  fatal  blow  being  struck  "  against  the  right  of  the  people  to  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits,  which  fatal  blow  he  assumed  as  in  evidence  in 
an  article  in  the  Washington  "  Union,"  published  "  by  authority."  I  ask 
by  whose  authority  ?  He  discovers  a  similar  or  identical  provision  in  the 
Lecompton  Constitution.  ]\Iade  by  whom  ?  The  framers  of  that  Constitu- 
tion. Advocated  by  whom  ?  By  all  the  members  of  the  party  in  the  nation, 
who  advocated  the  introduction  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecomp- 
ton Constitution. 

I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  evidence  that  he  arrayed  to  prove  tliat 
such  a  fatal  blow  was  being  struck,  and  to  the  facts  which  he  brought  forward 
in  support  of  that  charge,  —  being  identical  with  the  one  which  he  thinks  so 
villanous  in  me.  He  pointed  it,  not  at  a  newspaper  editor  merely,  but  at 
the  President  and  his  Cabinet  and  the  members  of  Congress  advocating  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  and  those  framing  that  instrument.  I  must. again  be 
permitted  to  remind  him  that  although  my  ipse  dixit  may  not  be  as  great 
as  his,  yet  it  somewhat  reduces  the  force  of  his  calling  my  attention  to  the 
enormity  of  my  making  a  like  charge  against  him. 

Go  on.  Judge  Douglas. 


MR.    DOUGLAS'S   SPEECH. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  The  silence  with  which  you  have  listened  to 
Mr.  Lincoln  during  his  hour  is  creditable  to  this  vast  audience,  composed  of 
men  of  various  political  parties.  Nothing  is  more  honorable  to  any  large 
mass  of  people  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  a  fair  discussion  than  that  kind 
and  respectful  attention  that  is  yielded,  not  only  to  your  political  friends,  but 
to  those  who  are  opposed  to  you  in  politics. 

I  am  glad  that  at  last  I  have  brought  ]\Ir.  Lincoln  to  the  conclusion  that 
he  had  better  define  his  position  on  certain  political  questions  to  which  I 
called  his  attention  at  Ottawa.  He  there  showed  no  disposition,  no  inclina- 
tion, to  answer  them.  I  did  not  present  idle  questions  for  him  to  answer, 
merely  for  my  gratification.  I  laid  the  foundation  for  those  interrogatories  by 
showing  that  they  constituted  the  platform  of  tlie  party  whose  nominee  he  is 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  115 

for  the  Senate.  I  did  not  presume  that  I  had  the  right  to  catechise  him  as  I 
saw  proper,  unless  I  showed  that  his  party,  or  a  majority  of  it,  stood  upon  tlie 
phitform  and  were  in  favor  of  the  propositions  upon  which  my  questions  were 
Ijased.  I  desired  simply  to  know,  inasmuch  as  lie  had  been  nominated  as  the 
first,  last,  and  only  choice  of  his  party,  whether  he  concurred  in  the  platform 
which  that  party  had  adopted  for  its  government.  In  a  few  moments  I  will 
proceed  to  review  the  answers  which  he  has  given  to  these  interrogatories ; 
but,  in  order  to  relieve  his  anxiety,  I  will  first  respond  to  these  which  he  has 
presented  to  me.  JVIark  you,  he  has  not  presented  interrogatories  which  have 
ever  received  the  sanction  of  the  party  with  which  I  am  acting,  and  hence  he 
has  no  otlier  foundation  for  them  than  his  own  curiosity. 

First,  he  desires  to  know  if  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  form  a  constitution 
by  means  entirely  proper  and  unobjectionable,  and  ask  admission  into  the 
Union  as  a  State,  before  they  have  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of 
Congress,  whether  I  will  vote  for  that  admission.     Well,  now,  I  regret  exceed- 
ino-ly  that  he  did  not  answer  that  interrogatory  himself  before  he  put  it  to  me, 
in  order  that  we  might  understand,  and  not  be  left  to  infer,  on  which  side  he 
is.     Mv.  Trumbull,  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  voted  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  against  the  admission  of  Oregon,  although  a  Free  State, 
because  she  had  not  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress.     Mr. 
Trumbull  would  not  consent,  under  any  circumstances,  to  let  a  State,  free  or 
slave,  come  into  the  Union  until  it  had  the  requisite  population.     As  Mr. 
Trumbull  is  in  the   field,  fighting  for  Mr.   Lincoln,  I  would  like  to  have  Mr. 
Lincoln  answer  his  own  question,  and  tell  me  whether  he  is  fighting  Trum- 
bull on  that  issue  or  not.     But  I  will  answer  his  question.     In  reference  to 
Kansas,  it  is  my  opinion  that  as  she  has  population  enough  to  constitute  a 
Slave  State,  she  has  people  enough  for  a  Free  State.     I  will  not  make  Kansas 
an  exceptional  case  to  the  other  States  of  the  Union.     I  hold  it  to  be  a  sound 
rule,  of  universal  application,  to  require  a  Territory  to  contain  the  requisite 
population  for  a  member  of  Congress  before  it  is  admitted  as  a  State  into  the 
Union.     I  made  that  proposition  in  the  Senate  in  1856,  and  I  renewed  it  dur- 
ing the  last  session,  in  a  bill  providing  that  no  Territory  of  the  United  States 
should  form  a  constitution  and  apply  for  admission  until  it  had  the  requisite 
population.     On  another  occasion  I  proposed  that  neither  Kansas  or  any  other 
Territory  should  be  admitted  until  it  had  the  requisite  population.     Congress 
did  not  adopt  any  of  my  propositions  containing  this  general  rule,  but  did 
make  an  exception  of  Kansas.      I  will  stand   by  that  exception.      Either 
Kansas  must  come  in  as  a  Free  State,  with  whatever  population  she   may 
have,  or  the  rule  must  be  applied  to  all  the  other  Territories  alike.     I  there- 
fore answer  at  once,  that,  itjiaving  been  decided  that  Kansas  has  people 
enough  for  a  Slave  State,  I  liold  that  she  has  enough  for  a  Free  State.    I  hope 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  satisfied  with  my  answer ;  and  now  I  would  like  to  get  his 
answer  to   his   own  interrogatory,  —  whether  or  not  he  will  vote  to  admit 
Kansas  before  she  has  the  requisite  population.     I  want  to  know  whether  he 
will  vote  to  admit  Oregon  before  that  Territory  has  the  requisite  population. 
Mr.   Trumbull   will  not,  and  the   same  reason   that  commits  Mr,  Trumbull 
against  the   admission  of  Oregon,  commits  him  against  Kansas,  even  if  she 
should  apply  for  admission  as  a  Free  State.     If  there  is  any  sincerity,  any 
truth,  in  the  argument  of  Mr.  Trumbull  in  the  Senate,  against  the  admission 
of  Oregon  because  she  had  not  93,420  people,  although  her  population  was 
larger  than  that  of  Kansas,  he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  both 
Oregon  and  Kansas  until  they  have  93,420  inhabitants.     I  would  like  Mr. 


116  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Liucoln  to  answer  this  question.  I  would  like  liim  to  take  liis  own  medicine. 
If  lie  differs  with  Mr.  Trumbull,  let  him  answer  his  argument  against  the 
admission  of  Oregon,  instead  of  poking  questions  at  me. 

The  next  question  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  Can  the  people  of 
a  Territory  in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  con- 
stitution ?      I  answer  emphatically,  as  ISIr.  Lincoln  has  heard  me  answer  a 
hundred  times  from  every  stump  in  Illinois,  that  in  my  opinion  the  people  of 
a  Territory  can,  by  lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to 
the  formation  of  a  State  constitution.     Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  answered 
that  question  over  and  over  again.     He  heard  me  argue  the  Nebraska  bill  on 
that  principle  all  over  the  State  in  1854,  in  1855,  and  in  1856,  and  he  has 
no  excuse  for  pretending  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  my  position  on  that  question. 
It  matters  not  what  way  the   Supreme  Court   may  hereafter  decide   as  to 
the  abstract  question  whether  slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a  Territory 
under  the  Constitution,  the  people  have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce  it  or 
exclude  it  as  they  please,  for  the  reason  that  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an 
hour  anywhere,  unless    it  is  supported  by  local  police  regulations.      Those 
police  regulations  can  only  be  established  by  the  local  legislature ;  and  if  the 
people  are  opposed  to  slavery,  they  will  elect  representatives  to  that  body 
who  will  by  unfriendly  legislation  effectually  prevent  the  introduction  of  it 
into  their  midst.    If,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  for  it,  their  legislation  will  favor 
its  extension.     Hence,  no  matter  what  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  may 
be  on  that  abstract  question,  still  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a  Slave 
Territory  or  a  Free  Territory  is  perfect  and  complete  under  the  Nebraska  bill. 
I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  deems  my  answer  satisfactory  on  that  point. 

In  this  connection,  I  will  notice  the  charge  which  he  has  introduced  in  rela- 
tion to  Mr.  Chase's  amendment.    I  thought  that  I  had  chased  that  amendment 
out  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  brain  at  Ottawa ;  but  it  seems  that  it  still  haunts  his  ima- 
gination, and  he  is  not  yet  satisfied.   I  had  supposed  that  he  would  be  ashamed 
to  press  that  question  furtlier.     He  is  a  lawyer,  and  has  been  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, and  has  occupied  his  time  and  amused  you  by  telling  you  about  par- 
liamentary proceedings.     He  ought  to  have  known  better  than  to  try  to  palm 
off  his  miserable  impositions  upon  this  intelligent  audience.     The  Nebraska 
bill  provided  that  the  legislative  power  and  autliority  of  the  said  Territory 
should  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  organic 
act  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.     It  did  not  make  any  exception 
as  to  slavery,  but  gave  all  the  power  that  it  was  possible  for  Congress  to  give, 
without  violating  the  Constitution,  to  the  Territorial  legislature,  with  no  excep- 
tion or  limitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  at  all.     The  language  of  that  bill 
which  I  have  quoted  gave  the  full  power  and  the  full  authority  over  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  affirmatively  and  negatively,  to  introduce  it  or  exclude  it,  so  far 
as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  would  permit.     What  more  could  ]Mr. 
Chase  give  by  his  amendment  ?     Nothing.     He  offered  his  amendment  for  the 
identical  purpose  for  which  j\Ir.  Lincoln  is  using  it,  —  to  enable  demagogues  in 
the  country  to  try  and  deceive  the  people. 

His  amendment  was  to  this  effect.  It  provided  that  the  legislature  should 
have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  ;  and  General  Cass  suggested,  "  Why  not  give 
the  power  to  introduce  as  well  as  exclude  ?  "  The  answer  was.  They  Imve  tlie 
power  already  in  tlie  bill  to  do  both.  Chase  was  afraid  his  amendment  would 
be  adopted  if  he  put  the  alternative  proposition,  and  so  make  it  fair  both  ways, 
but  would  not  yield.     He  offered  it  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  rejected. 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  117 

He  offered  it,  as  he  has  himself  avowed  over  and  over  again,  simply  to  make 
capital  out  of  it  for  the  stump.  He  expected  tliat  it  would  be  capital  for 
small  politicians  in  the  country,  and  that  they  would  make  an  effort  to  deceive 
the  people  with  it ;  and  he  was  not  mistaken,  for  Lincoln  is  carrying  out  the 
plan  admirably.  Lincoln  knows  that  the  Nebraska  bill,  without  Chase's 
amendment,  gave  all  the  power  which  the  Constitution  would  permit.  Could 
Congress  confer  any  more  ?  Could  Congress  go  beyond  the  Constitution  of 
the  country  ?  We  gave  all  a  full  grant,  with  no  exception  in  regard  to  slav- 
ery one  way  or  the  othei".  We  left  that  question  as  we  left  all  others,  to  be 
decided  by  the  people  for  themselves,  just  as  they  pleased.  I  will  not  occupy 
my  time  on  this  question.  I  have  argued  it  before,  all  over  Illinois.  I  have 
argued  it  in  this  beautiful  city  of  Freeport ;  I  have  argued  it  in  the  JSTorth,  the 
South,  the  East,  and  the  West,  avowing  the  same  sentiments  and  the  same  prin- 
ciples. I  have  not  been  afraid  to  avow  my  sentiments  up  here  for  fear  I  would 
be  trotted  down  into  Egypt. 

The  third  question  which  Mr.  Lincoln  presented  is,  If  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  shall  decide  tliat  a  State  of  this  Union  cannot  exclude 
slavery  from  its  own  limits,  will  I  submit  to  it  ?  I  am  amazed  tliat  Lincoln 
should  ask  such  a  question.  [  "  A  schoolboy  knows  better."]  Yes,  a  school- 
boy does  know  better.  Mr.  Lincoln's  object  is  to  cast  an  imputation  upon  the 
Supreme  Court.  He  knows  that  there  never  was  but  one  man  in  America, 
claiming  any  degree  of  intelligence  or  decency,  who  ever  for  a  moment  pre- 
tended such  a  thing.  It  is  true  that  the  Washington  "  Union,"  in  an  article  pub- 
lished on  the  17th  of  last  December,  did  put  forth  that  doctrine,  and  I  denounced 
the  article  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  in  a  speech  which  Mr.  Lincoln  now  pre- 
tends was  against  the  President.  The  "  Union  "  had  claimed  that  slavery  had 
a  right  to  go  into  the  Free  States,  and  that  any  provision  in  the  Constitution 
or  laws  of  the  Free  States  to  the  contrary  were  null  and  void,  I  denounced 
it  in  the  Senate,  as  I  said  before,  and  I  was  the  first  man  who  did.  Lincoln's 
friends,  Trumbull,  and  Seward,  and  Hale,  and  Wilson,  and  the  whole  Black 
liepublican  side  of  the  Senate,  were  silent.  Tliey  left  it  to  me  to  denounce 
it.  And  what  was  the  reply  made  to  me  on  that  occasion  ?  Mr.  Toombs,  of 
Georgia,  got  up  and  undertook  to  lecture  me  on  the  ground  that  I  ought  not 
to  have  deemed  the  article  worthy  of  notice,  and  ought  not  to  have  replied 
to  it ;  that  there  was  not  one  man,  woman,  or  chihl  south  of  the  Potomac, 
in  any  Slave  State,  who  did  not  repudiate  any  such  pretension.  Mr.  Lincoln 
knows  that  that  reply  was  made  on  the  spot,  and  yet  now  he  asks  this  ques- 
tion. He  might  as  well  ask  me.  Suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  should  steal  a  horse, 
would  I  sanction  it ;  and  it  would  be  as  genteel  in  me  to  ask  him,  in  the  event 
he  stole  a  horse,  what  ought  to  be  done  with  him.  He  casts  an  imputation  upon 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  by  supposing  that  they  would  violate 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  tell  him  that  such  a  thing  is  not 
possible.  It  would  be  an  act  of  moral  treason  that  no  man  on  the  bench  could 
ever  descend  to,  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  would  never  in  his  partisan  feelings  so 
far  forget  what  was  right  as  to  be  guilty  of  such  an  act. 

Tlie  fourth  question  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is.  Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring 
additional  territory,  in  disregard  as  to  how  such  acquisition  may  affect  the 
Union  on  the  Slavery  questions  ?  This  question  is  very  ingeniously  and  cun- 
ningly put. 

The  Black  Eepublican  creed  lays  it  down  expressly  that  under  no  circum- 
stances sliall  we  acquire  any  more  territory,  unless  slavery  is  first  prohibited 
in  the  country.     I  ask  Mr.  Liucolu  whether  he  is  in  favor  of  that  proposition. 


118  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Are  you  [addressing  Mr.  Lincoln]  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  any  more  ter- 
ritory, under  any  circumstances,  unless  slavery  is  prohibited  in  it  ?  That  he 
does  not  like  to  answer.  When  I  ask  him  whether  he  stands  up  to  that  article 
in  the  platform  of  his  party,  he  turns,  Yankee-fashion,  and  without  answering 
it,  asks  me  whether  I  am  in  favor  of  acquiring  territory  without  regard  to  how 
it  may  affect  the  Union  on  the  slavery  question.  I  answer  that  whenever  it 
becomes  necessary,  in  our  growth  and  progress,  to  acquire  more  territory,  that 
I  am  in  favor  of  it,  without  reference  to  the  question  of  slavery  ;  and  when  we 
have  acquired  it,  I  will  leave  the  people  free  to  do  as  they  please,  either  to 
make  it  slave  or  free  territory,  as  they  prefer.  It  is  idle  to  tell  me  or  you 
that  we  have  territory  enough.  Our  fathers  supposed  that  we  liad  enough 
when  our  territory  extended  to  the  Mississippi  Eiver ;  but  a  few  years'  growth 
and  expansion  satisfied  them  that  we  needed  more,  and  the  Louisiana  ter- 
ritory, from  the  West  brancli  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  British  possessions,  was 
acquired.  Then  we  acquired  Oregon,  then  California  and  New  Mexico.  We 
have  enough  now  for  the  present ;  but  this  is  a  young  and  a  growing  nation. 
It  swarms  as  often  as  a  hive  of  bees ;  and  as  new  swarms  are  turned  out  each 
year,  there  must  be  hives  in  which  they  can  gather  and  make  their  honey. 
In  less  than  fifteen  years,  if  the  same  progress  that  has  distinguished  this 
country  for  the  last  fifteen  years  continues,  every  foot  of  vacant  land  between 
this  and  the  Pacific  Ocean,  owned  by  the  United  States,  will  be  occupied. 
Will  you  not  continue  to  increase  at  the  end  of  fifteen  years  as  well  as  now  ? 
I  tell  you,  increase,  and  multiply,  and  expand,  is  the  law  of  this  nation's 
existence.  You  cannot  limit  this  great  Eepublic  by  mere  boundary  lines,  say- 
ing, "  Thus  far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  further."  Any  one  of  you  gentlemen 
might  as  well  say  to  a  son  twelve  years  old  that  he  is  big  enough,  and  must 
not  grow  any  larger ;  and  in  order  to  prevent  liis  growth,  put  a  hoop  around 
him  to  keep  him  to  his  present  size.  What  would  be  the  result  ?  Either 
the  hoop  must  burst  and  be  rent  asunder,  or  the  child  must  die.  So  it 
would  be  with  this  great  nation.  With  our  natural  increase,  growing  with  a 
rapidity  unknown  in  any  other  part  of  the  globe,  with  the  tide  of  emigration 
that  is  fleeing  from  despotism  in  the  old  world  to  seek  refuge  in  our  ow.n,  there 
is  a  constant  torrent  pouring  into  this  country  that  requires  more  land,  more 
territory  upon  which  to  settle ;  and  just  as  fast  as  our  interests  and  our  destiny 
require  additional  territory  in  the  North,  in  the  South,  or  on  the  islands  of  the 
ocean,  I  am  for  it ;  and  when  we  acquire  it,  will  leave  the  people,  according  to 
the  Nebraska  bill,  free  to  do  as  they  please  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  every 
other  question. 

I  trust  now  that  Mr.  Lincoln  will  deem  himself  answered  on  his  four 
points.  He  racked  his  brain  so  much  in  devising  these  four  questions  that 
he  exhausted  himself,  and  had  not  strength  enough  to  invent  the  others.  As 
soon  as  he  is  able  to  hold  a  council  with  his  advisers,  Lovejoy,  Farnsworth, 
and  Fred  Douglass,  he  will  frame  and  propound  others.  ["  Good,  good."] 
You  Black  Eepublicans  who  say  good,  I  have  no  doubt  think  that  they  are  all 
good  men.  I  have  reason  to  recollect  that  some  people  in  this  country  think 
that  Fred  Douglass  is  a  very  good  man.  The  last  time  I  came  here  to  make 
a  speech,  while  talking  from  the  stand  to  you,  people  of  Freeport,  as  I  am 
doing  to-day,  I  saw  a  carriage  —  and  a  magnificent  one  it  was  —  diive  up  and 
take  a  position  on  the  outside  of  the  crowd  ;  a  beautiful  young  lady  was  sit- 
ting on  the  box-seat,  whilst  Fred  Douglass  and  her  mother  reclined  inside,  and 
the  owner  of  the  carriage  acted  as  driver.  I  saw  this  in  your  own  town. 
["  What  of  it  ?  "]     All  I  have  to  say  of  it  is  this,  that  if  you.  Black  Republi- 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  119 


cans,  think  that  the  negro  ought  to  he  on  a  social  equality  with  your  wives 
and  daughters,  and  ride  in  a  carriage  with  your  wife,  whilst  you  drive  the 
team,  you  have  perfect  right  to  do  so.  I  am  told  that  one  of  Fred  Douglass's 
kinsmen,  another  rich  black  negro,  is  now  travelling  in  tliis  part  of  the  State, 
making  speeches  for  his  friend  Lincoln  as  the  champion  of  black  men. 
["  What  have  you  to  say  against  it  ?  "]  All  I  have  to  say  on  that  subject  is, 
that  those  of  you  who  believe  that  the  negro  is  your  equal  and  ought  to  be 
on  an  equality  with  you  socially,  politically,  and  legally,  have  a  right  to  enter- 
tain those  opinions,  and  of  course  will  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln. 

I  have  a  word  to  say  on  Mr.  Lincoln's  answer  to  the  interrogatories  con- 
tained in  my  speech  at  Ottawa,  and  which  he  has  pretended  to  reply  to  here 
to-day.  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  a  great  parade  of  the  fact  that  I  quoted  a  plat- 
form as  having  been  adopted  by  the  Black  Eepublican  party  at  Springfield  in 
1854,  which,  it  turns  out,  was  adopted  at  another  place.  Mr.  Lincoln  loses 
sight  of  the  thing  itself  in  his  ecstasies  over  the  mistake  I  made  in  stating  the 
place  where  it  was  done.  He  thinks  that  that  platform  was  not  adopted  on 
the  right  "  spot." 

When  I  put  the  direct  questions  to  Mr.  Lincoln  to  ascertain  whether  he 
now  stands  pledged  to  that  creed,  —  to  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  law,  a  refusal  to  admit  any  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union,  even 
if  the  people  want  them,  a  determination  to  apply  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  not 
only  to  all  the  territory  we  now  have,  but  all  that  we  may  hereafter  acquire, 
—  he  refused  to  answer  ;  and  his  followers  say,  in  excuse,  that  the  resolutions 
upon  which  I  based  my  interrogatories  were  not  adopted  at  the  "  right  spot!' 
Lincoln  and  his  political  friends  are  great  on  "  spots."  In  Congress,  as  a 
representative  of  this  State,  he  declared  the  Mexican  war  to  be  unjust  and 
infamous,  and  would  not  support  it,  or  acknowledge  his  own  country  to  be 
rioht  in  the  contest,  because  he  said  that  American  blood  was  not  shed  on 
American  soil  in  the  "  right  spot."  And  now  he  cannot  answer  the  questions 
I  put  to  him  at  Ottawa  because  the  resolutions  I  read  were  not  adopted  at 
the  "  right  spot."  It  may  be  possible  that  I  was  led  into  an  error  as  to  the 
spot  on  which  the  resolutions  I  tlien  read  were  proclaimed,  but  I  was  not,  and 
am  not,  in  error  as  to  the  fact  of  their  forming  the  basis  of  the  creed  of  the 
Republican  party  when  that  party  was  first  organized.  I  Vv'ill  state  to  you  the 
evidence  I  had,  and  upon  which  I  relied  for  my  statement  that  the  resolu- 
tions in  question  were  adopted  at  Springfield  on  the  oth  of  October,  1854. 
Although  I  was  aware  that  such  resolutions  had  been  passed  in  this  district, 
and  nearly  all  the  Northern  Congressional  Districts  and  County  Conventions, 
I  had  not  noticed  whether  or  not  they  had  been  adopted  by  any  State  Conven- 
tion. In  1856,  a  debate  arose  in  Congress  between  Major  Thomas  L.  Harris, 
of  the  Springfield  District,  and  Mr.  Norton,  of  the  Joliet  District,  on  political 
matters  connected  witli  our  State,  in  the  course  of  which.  Major  Harris  quoted 
those  resolutions  as  having  been  passed  by  the  first  Ke publican  State  Conven- 
tion that  ever  assembled  in  Illinois.  I  knew  that  Major  Harris  was  remark- 
able for  his  accuracy,  that  he  was  a  very  conscientious  and  sincere  man,  and  I 
also  noticed  that  Norton  did  not  question  the  accuracy  of  this  statement.  I 
therefore  took  it  for  granted  that  it  was  so  ;  and  the  other  day  when  I  con- 
cluded to  use  the  resolutions  at  Ottawa,  I  wrote  to  Charles  II.  Lanpliier, 
editor  of  the  "State  Register,"  at  Springfield,  calling  his  attention  to  them, 
telling  liim  that  I  liad  been  informed  that  Major  Harris  was  lying  sick  at 
Springfield,  and  desiring  him  to  call  upon  him  and  ascertain  all  the  facts  con- 
cerning the  resolutions,  the  time  and  tlie  place  where  they  were  adopted.  In 
reply,  Mr.  Lanphier  sent  me  two  copies  of  his  paper,  which  I  have  here.     The 


120  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

first  is  a  copy  of  the  "  State  Eegister,"  published  at  Springfield,  Mr.  Lincoln's 
own  town,  on  the  16th  of  October,  1854,  only  eleven  days  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Convention,  from  which  I  desire  to  read  the  following  :  — 

"  During  the  late  discussions  in  this  city,  Lincoln  made  a  speech,  to  which  Judge 
Douglas  replied.  In  Lincoln's  speech  he  took  the  broad  ground  that,  according  to 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  whites  and  blacks  are  equal.  P'roni  this  he 
drew  the  conclusion,  which  he  several  times  repeated,  that  the  white  man  had  no 
right  to  pass  laws  for  the  government  of  the  black  man  without  the  nigger's  consent. 
This  speech  of  Lincoln's  was  heard  and  applauded  by  all  the  Abolitionists  assembled 
in  Springfield.  So  soon  as  Mr.  Lincoln  was  done  speaking,  Mr.  Codding  arose,  and 
requested  all  the  delegates  to  the  Black  liepublicau  Convention  to  withdraw  into  the 
Senate  chamber.  They  did  so  ;  and  after  long  deliberation,  they  laid  down  tlie  fol- 
lowing Abolition  platform  as  the  platform  on  which  they  stood.  We  call  the  parti- 
cular attention  of  all  our  readers  to  it." 

Then  follows  the  identical  platform,  word  for  word,  which  I  read  at  Ottawa. 
Now,  that  was  published  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  own  town,  eleven  days  after  the 
Convention  was  held,  and  it  has  remained  on  record  up  to  this  day  never 
contradicted. 

When  I  quoted  the  resolutions  at  Ottawa  and  questioned  j\Ir.  Lincoln  in 
relation  to  them,  he  said  that  his  name  was  on  the  committee  that  reported 
them,  but  he  did  not  serve,  nor  did  he  think  he  served,  because  he  was,  or 
thought  he  was,  in  Tazewell  County  at  the  time  the  Convention  was  in  ses- 
sion. He  did  not  deny  that  the  resolutions  were  passed  by  the  Springfield 
Convention.  He  did  not  know  better,  and  evidently  thought  that  they  were; 
but  afterward  his  friends  cleclared  that  they  had  discovered  that  they  varied 
in  some  respects  from  the  resolutions  passed  by  that  Convention.  I  have 
shown  you  that  I  had  good  evidence  for  believing  that  the  resolutions  had 
been  passed  at  Springfield.  Mr.  Lincoln  ought  to  have  known  better  ;  but  not 
a  word  is  said  about  his  ignorance  on  the  subject,  whilst  I,  notwithstanding 
the  circumstances,  am  accused  of  forgery. 

Now,  I  will  show  you  that  if  I  have  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  place  where 
these  resolutions  w^ere  adopted,  —  and  when  I  get  down  to  Springfield  I  will 
investigate  the  matter,  and  see  whether  or  not  I  have,  —  that  the  principles 
they  enunciate  were  adopted  as  the  Black  Eepublican  platform  ["  white, 
white  "],  in  the  various  counties  and  Congressional  Districts  throughout  the 
north  end  of  the  State  in  1854  This  platform  was  adopted  in  nearly  every 
county  that  gave  a  Black  Eepublican  majority  for  the  Legislature  in  that  year, 
and  here  is  a  man  [pointing  to  Mr.  Denio,  who  sat  on  the  stand  near  Deacon 
Bross]  who  knows  as  well  as  any  living  man  that  it  was  the  creed  of  the 
Black  Eepublican  party  at  that  time.  I  would  be  willing  to  call  Denio  as  a 
witness,  or  any  other  honest  man  belonging  to  that  party.  I  will  now  read 
the  resolutions  adopted  at  the  Rockford  Convention  on  the  30th  of  August, 
1854,  which  nominated  Washburne  for  Congress.  You  elected  him  on  the 
following  platform  :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  continued  and  increasing  aggressions  of  slavery  in  our  coun- 
try are  destructive  of  the  best  rights  of  a  free  people,  and  that  such  aggressions  cannot 
be  successfully  resisted  without  the  united  political  action  of  all  good  men. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  hold  in  their  hands  peaceful, 
constitutional,  and  efficient  remedy  against  the  encroachments  of  the  slave  power,  — 
the  ballot-box  ;  and  if  that  remedy  is  boldlj^  and  wisely  applied,  the  principles  of 
liberty  and  eternal  justice  will  be  established. 

^'Resolved,  That  we  accept  this  issue  forced  upon  us  by  the  slave  power,  and,  in 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  121 

defence  of  freedom,  will  co-operate  and  be  known  as  Eepublicans,  pledged  to  the 
accomplishment  of  the  following  purposes  :  — 

"  To  bring  the  Administration  of  the  Government  back  to  the  control  of  first 
principles ;  to  restore  Kansas  and  Nebraska  to  the  position  of  Free  Territories  ;  to 
repeal  and  entirely  abrogate  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  ;  to  restrict  slavery  to  those  States 
in  which  it  exists  ;  to  prohibit  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  into  the 
Union  ;  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Territories  over  which  the  General  Govern- 
ment has  exclusive  jurisdiction  ;  and  to  resist  the  acquisition  of  any  more  Territories, 
unless  the  introduction  of  slavery  therein  forever  shall  have  been  prohibited. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  furtherance  of  these  principles  we  will  use  such  constitutional 
and  lawful  means  as  shall  seem  best  adapted  to  their  accomplishment,  and  that  we  will 
support  no  man  for  office  under  the  General  or  State  Government  who  is  not  positively 
committed  to  the  support  of  these  principles,  and  whose  personal  character  and  con- 
duct is  not  a  guarantee  that  he  is  reliable,  and  shall  abjure  all  party  allegiance  and  ties. 

"  Resolved,  That  we  cordially  invite  persons  of  all  former  political  parties  what- 
ever, in  favor  of  the  object  expressed  in  the  above  resolutions,  to  unite  with  us  in 
carrying  them  into  effect." 

Well,  you  think  that  is  a  very  good  platform,  do  you  not  ?  If  you  do,  if 
you  approve  it  now,  and  think  it  is  all  right,  you  will  not  join  with  those  men 
who  say  that  I  libel  you  by  calling  these  your  principles,  will  you  ?  Now, 
Mr.  Lincoln  complains  ;  Mr.  Lincoln  charges  that  I  did  you  and  him  injustice 
by  saying  that  this  was  the  platform  of  your  party.  I  am  told  that  Wash- 
burne  made  a  speech  in  Galena  last  night,  in  which  he  abused  me  awfully 
for  bringing  to  light  this  platform,  on  which  he  was  elected  to  Congress.  He 
thought  that  you  had  forgotten  it,  as  he  and  Mr.  Lincoln  desires  to.  He  did 
not  deny  but  that  you  had  adopted  it,  and  that  he  had  subscribed  to  and  was 
pledged  by  it,  but  he  did  not  think  it  was  fair  to  call  it  up  and  remind  the 
people  that  it  was  their  platform. 

But  I  am  glad  to  find  that  you  are  more  honest  in  your  Abolitionism  than 
your  leaders,  by  avowing  that  it  is  your  platform,  and  right  in  your  opinion. 

In  the  adoption  of  that  platform,  you  not  only  declared  that  you  would 
resist  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States,  and  work  for  the  repeal  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law,  but  you  pledged  yourselves  not  to  vote  for  any  man  for 
State  or  Federal  offices  who  was  not  committed  to  these  principles.  You  were 
thus  committed.  Similar  resolutions  to  those  were  adopted  in  your  county 
Convention  here,  and  now  with  your  admissions  that  they  are  your  platform 
and  embody  your  sentiments  now  as  they  did  then,  what  do  you  think,  of  Mr, 
Lincoln,  your  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  who  is  attempting  to 
dodge  the  responsibility  of  this  platform,  because  it  was  not  adopted  in  the 
right  spot,  I  thought  that  it  was  adopted  in  Springfield  ;  but  it  turns  out  it 
was  not,  that  it  was  adopted  at  Eockford,  and  in  the  various  counties  which 
comprise  this  Congressional  District.  When  I  get  into  the  next  district,  I 
will  show  that  the  same  platform  was  adopted  there,  and  so  on  through  the 
State,  until  I  nail  the  responsibility  of  it  upon  the  back  of  the  Black  Kepub- 
lican  party  throughout  the  State. 

A  voice :    Couldn't  you  modify,  and  call  it  brown  ? 

Mr.  Douglas  :  Not  a  bit,  I  thought  that  you  were  becoming  a  little  brown 
when  your  members  in  Congress  voted  for  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill; 
but  since  you  have  backed  out  from  that  position  and  gone  back  to  Abolition- 
ism you  are  black,  and  not  brown. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  shown  you  what  your  platform  was  in  1854.  You  still 
adhere  to  it.      The  same  platform  was  adopted   by  nearly  all  the  counties 

16 


122  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

where  the  Black  RepuLlican  party  had  a  majority  in  1854.  I  wisli  now  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  action  of  your  representatives  in  the  Legislature 
when  they  assembled  together  at  Springfield.  In  the  first  place,  you  nmst 
remember  that  this  was  the  organization  of  a  new  party.  It  is  so  declared  in 
the  resolutions  themselves,  which  say  that  you  are  going  to  dissolve  all  old 
party  ties  and  call  the  new  party  Eei)ublican.  The  old  Whig  party  was  to 
have  its  throat  cut  from  ear  to  ear,  and  the  Democratic  party  was  to  be  anni- 
hilated and  blotted  out  of  existence,  whilst  in  lieu  of  these  parties  the  Black 
Eepublican  party  was  to  be  organized  on  this  Abolition  platform.  You  know 
who  the  chief  leaders  were  in  breaking  up  and  destroying  these  two  great 
parties.  Lincoln  on  the  one  hand,  and  Trumbull  on  the  other,  being  disap- 
pointed politicians,  and  having  retired  or  been  driven  to  obscurity  by  an 
outraged  constituency  because  of  their  political  sins,  formed  a  scheme  to  Abo- 
litionize  the  two  parties,  and  lead  the  old  line  Whigs  and  old  line  Democrats 
captive,  bound  hand  and  foot,  into  the  Abolition  camp.  Giddings,  Chase,  Fred 
Douglass,  and  Lovejoy  were  here  to  christen  them  whenever  they  were  brought 
in.  Lincoln  went  to  work  to  dissolve  the  old  line  Whig  party.  Clay  was 
dead ;  and  although  the  sod  was  not  yet  green  on  his  grave,  this  man  under- 
took to  bring  into  disrepute  those  great  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  with 
which  Clay  and  Webster  were  identified.  Up  to  1854  the  old  Whig  party 
and  the  Democratic  party  had  stood  on  a  common  platform  so  far  as  this 
slavery  question  was  concerned.  You  Whigs  and  we  Democrats  differed 
about  the  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular,  and  the  sub-treasury, 
but  we  agreed  on  this  slavery  question,  and  the  true  mode  of  preserving  the 
peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union.  The  Compromise  measures  of  1850  were 
introduced  by  Clay,  were  defended  by  Webster,  and  supported  by  Cass,  and 
were  approved  by  Fillmore,  and  sanctioned  by  the  National  men  of  both 
parties.  They  constituted  a  common  plank  upon  which  both  Whigs  and 
Democrats  stood.  In  1852  the  Whig  party,  in  its  last  National  Convention 
at  Baltimore,  indorsed  and  approved  these  measures  of  Clay,  and  so  did  the 
National  Convention  of  the  Democratic  party  held  that  same  year.  Thus  the 
old  line  Whigs  and  the  old  line  Democrats  stood  pledged  to  the  great  princi- 
ple of  self-government,  which  guarantees  to  the  people  of  each  Territory  the 
right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves.  In  1854,  after  the  death 
of  Clay  and  Webster,  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  the  part  of  the  Whigs,  undertook  to 
Abolitionize  the  Whig  party,  by  dissolving  it,  transferring  the  members  into 
the  Abolition  camp,  and  making  them  train  under  Giddings,  Fred  Douglass, 
Lovejoy,  Chase,  Farnsworth,  and  other  Abolition  leaders.  Trumbull  undertook 
to  dissolve  the  Democratic  party  by  taking  old  Democrats  into  the  Abolition 
camp.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  aided  in  his  efforts  by  many  leading  Whigs  through- 
out the  State,  your  member  of  Congress,  Mr.  Washburue,  being  one  of  the 
most  active.  Trumbull  was  aided  by  many  renegades  from  the  Democratic 
party,  among  whom  were  John  Wentworth,  Tom  Turner,  and  others,  with 
whom  you  are  familiar. 

[Mr.  Turner,  who  was  one  of  the  moderators,  here  interposed,  and  said 
that  he  had  drawn  the  resolutions  which  Senator  Douglas  had  read.] 

Mr.  Douglas  :  Yes,  and  Turner  says  that  he  drew  these  resolutions. 
[  "  Hurrah  for  Turner,"  '•  Hurrah  for  Douglas."  ]  That  is  right ;  give  Turner 
cheers  for  drawing  the  resolutions  if  you  approve  them.  If  he  drew  those 
resolutions,  he  will  not  deny  that  they  are  the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican 
party. 

Mr.  Turner:  They  are  our  creed  exactly. 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  123 

Mr.  Douglas  :  And  yet  Lincoln  denies  that  he  stands  on  them.  Mt. 
Turner  says  that  the  creed  of  the  Black  Kepiiblican  party  is  tlie  admission  of 
no  more  Slave  States,  and  yet  Mr.  Lincoln  declares  that  he  would  not  like  to 
be  placed  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  for  them.  All  I  have  to 
say  to  friend  Lincoln  is,  that  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  danger  of  his  being 
placed  in  such  a  position.  As  Mr.  Lincoln  would  be  very  sorry  to  be  placed 
in  such  an  embarrassing  position  as  to  be  obliged  to  vote  on  the  admission  of 
any  more  Slave  States,  I  propose,  out  of  mere  kindness,  to  relieve  him  from 
any  such  necessity. 

When  the  bargain  between  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  was  completed  for  Aboli- 
tionizing  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  they  "  spread "  over  the  State, 
Lincoln  still  pretending  to  be  an  old  line  Whig,  in  order  to  "  rope  in  "  the 
Whigs,  and  Trumbull  pretending  to  be  as  good  a  Democrat  as  he  ever  was,  in 
order  to  coax  the  Democrats  over  into  the  Abolition  ranks.  They  played  the 
part  that  "  decoy  ducks  "  play  down  on  the  Potomac  Kiver.  In  that  part  of 
the  country  they  make  artificial  ducks,  and  put  them  on  the  water  in  places 
where  the  wild  ducks  are  to  be  fouiid,  for  the  purpose  of  decoying  them. 
Well,  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  played  the  part  of  these  "  decoy  ducks,"  and 
deceived  enough  old  line  Whigs  and  old  line  Democrats  to  elect  a  Black 
Republican  Legislature.  When  that  Legislature  met,  the  first  thing  it  did 
was  to  elect  as  Speaker  of  the  House  the  very  man  who  is  now  boasting  that 
he  wrote  the  Abolition  platform  on  which  Lincoln  will  not  stand.  I  want  to 
know  of  Mr.  Turner  whether  or  not,  when  he  was  elected,  he  was  a  good 
embodiment  of  Eepublican  principles  ? 

Mr.  Turner:  I  hope  I  was  then,  and  am  now. 

Mr.  Douglas  :  He  swears  that  he  hopes  he  was  then,  and  is  now.  He 
wrote  that  Black  Eepublican  platform,  and  is  satisfied  with  it  now.  I  admire 
and  acknowledge  Turner's  honesty.  Every  man  of  you  know  that  what  he 
says  about  these  resolutions  being  the  platform  of  the  Black  Eepublican  party 
is  true,  and  you  also  know  that  each  one  of  these  men  who  are  shuffling  and 
trying  to  deny  it  are  only  trying  to  cheat  the  people  out  of  their  votes  for  the 
purpose  of  deceiving  them  still  more  after  the  election.  I  propose  to  trace 
this  thing  a  little  further,  in  order  that  you  can  see  what  additional  evidence 
there  is  to  fasten  this  revolutionary  platform  upon  the  Black  Eepublican 
party.  When  the  Legislature  assembled,  there  was  a  United  States  Senator 
to  elect  in  the  place  of  General  Shields,  and  before  they  proceeded  to  ballot, 
Lovejoy  insisted  on  laying  down  certain  principles  by  which  to  govern  the 
party.  It  has  been  published  to  the  world  and  satisfactorily  proven  that 
there  was,  at  the  time  the  alliance  was  made  between  Trumbull  and  Lincoln 
to  Abolitionize  the  two  parties,  an  agreement  that  Lincoln  should  take 
Shields's  place  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  Trumbidl  should  have  mine 
so  soon  as  they  could  conveniently  get  rid  of  me.  When  Lincoln  was  beaten 
for  Shields's  place,  in  a  manner  I  will  refer  to  in  a  few  minutes,  he  felt  very 
sore  and  restive ;  his  friends  grumbled,  and  some  of  them  came  out  and 
charged  that  the  most  infamous  treachery  had  been  practised  against  him ; 
that  the  bargain  was  that  Lincoln  was  to  have  had  Shields's  place,  and  Trum- 
bull was  to  have  waited  fur  mine,  but  that  Trumbull,  having  the  control  of  a 
few  Abolitionized  Democrats,  he  prevented  them  from  voting  for  Lincoln,  thus 
keeping  him  within  a  few  votes  of  an  election  until  he  succeeded  in  forcing 
the  party  to  drop  him  and  elect  Trumbull.  Well,  Trumbull  having  cheated 
Lincoln,  his  friends  made  a  fuss,  and  in  order  to  keep  them  and  Lincoln  quiet, 
the  party  were  obliged  to  come  forward,  in  advance,  at  the  last  State  election, 


124  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

and  make  a  pledge  that  tbey  would  go  for  Lincoln  and  nobody  else.     Lincoln 
could  not  be  silenced  in  any  other  way. 

Now,  there  are  a  great  many  Black  Eepublicans  of  you  who  do  not  know 
this  thing  was  done.  ["White,  white,"  and  great  clamor.]  I  wish  to  remind 
you  tlmt  while  Mr.  Lincoln  was  speaking  there  was  not  a  Democrat  vulgar 
and  blackguard  enough  to  interrupt  him.  But  I  know  that  the  shoe  is  pinch- 
ing you.  I  am  clinching  Lincoln  now,  and  you  are  scared  to  death  for  the 
result.  I  have  seen  this  thing  before.  I  have  seen  men  make  appointments 
for  joint  discussions,  and  the  moment  their  man  has  been  heard,  try  to  inter- 
rupt and  prevent  a  fair  hearing  of  the  other  side.  I  have  seen  your  mobs 
before,  and  defy  your  wrath.  [Tremendous  applause.]  IVIy  friends,  do  not 
cheer,  for  I  need  my  whole  time.  The  object  of  the  opposition  is  to  occupy 
my  attention  in  order  to  prevent  me  from  giving  the  whole  evidence  and  nail- 
ing this  double  dealing  on  the  Black  Eepublican  party.  As  I  have  before 
said,  Lovejoy  demanded  a  declaration  of  principles  on  the  part  of  the  Black 
Eepublicans  of  the  Legislature  before  going  into  an  election  for  L^nited  States 
Senator.  He  offered  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  which  I  hold  in 
my  hand  : 

"  Whereas,  Human  slavery  is  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  and  revealed 
rights  ;  and  whereas  the  fathers  of  the  Revohition,  fully  imbued  with  the  spirit  of 
these  principles,  declared  freedom  to  he  the  inalienable  birthright  of  all  men  ;  and 
whereas  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  avers  that  that  instru- 
ment was  ordained  to  establish  justice,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  libertj'  to  ourselves 
and  our  posterity  ;  and  whereas,  in  furtherance  of  the  above  principles,  slavery  was 
forever  prohibited  in  the  old  Northwest  Territory,  and  more  recently  in  all  that  Ter- 
ritory lying  west  and  north  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  by  the  act  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment ;  and  whereas  the  repeal  of  the  prohibition  last  referred  to  was  contrary  to  the 
wishes  of  the  people  of  Illinois,  a  violation  of  an  implied  compact  long  deemed  sacred 
by  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  a  wide  departure  from  the  uniform  action  of 
the  General  Government  in  relation  to  the  extension  of  slavery ;  therefore, 

^'Resolved,  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  Senate  concurring  therein.  That  our 
Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives  requested  to  introduce, 
if  not  otherwise  introduced,  and  to  vote  for  a  bill  to  restore  such  prohibition  to 
the  aforesaid  Territories,  and  also  to  extend  a  similar  prohibition  to  all  territory 
Avhich  now  belongs  to  the  United  States,  or  Avhich  may  hereafter  come  under 
their  jurisdiction. 

"  Resolved,  That  our  Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Eepresentativcs 
requested,  to  vote  against  the  admission  of  any  State  into  the  Union,  the  Constitu- 
tion of  which  does  not  prohibit  slavery,  Aviiether  the  territory  out  of  which  such 
State  may  have  been  formed  shall  have  been  acquired  by  conquest,  treaty,  purchase, 
or  from  original  territory  of  the  United  States. 

'•  Resolved,  That  our  Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives 
requested,  to  introduce  and  vote  for  a  bill  to  repeal  an  Act  entitled  '  an  Act  respect- 
ing fugitives  from  justice  and  persons  escaping  from  the  service  of  their  masters  ; ' 
and,  failing  in  that,  for  such  a  modification  of  it  as  shall  secure  the  right  of  habeas 
corpus  and  trial  by  jury  before  the  regularly  constituted  authorities  of  the  State,  to 
all  persons  claimed  as  owing  service  or  labor." 

Those  resolutions  were  introduced  by  Mr.  Lovejoy  immediately  preceding 
the  election  of  Senator.  They  declared,  first,  that  the  Wilmot  Proviso  must 
be  applied  to  all  territory  north  of  36  deg.  30  min.  Secondly,  that  it  must  be 
applied  to  all  territory  south  of  36  deg.  30  min.  Thirdly,  that  it  must  be  applied 
to  all  the  territory  now  owned  by  the  United  States ;  and  finally,  that  it  must 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  125 

be  applied  to  all  territory  hereafter  to  be  acquired  by  the  United  States.  The 
next  resolution  declares  that  no  more  Slave  Slaves  shall  be  admitted  into  this 
Union  under  any  circumstances  whatever,  no  matter  whether  they  are  formed 
out  of  territory  now  owned  by  us  or  that  we  may  hereafter  acquire,  by  treaty, 
by  Congress,  or  in  any  manner  whatever.  The  next  resolution  demands  the 
unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  although  its  unconditional 
repeal  would  leave  no  provision  for  carrying  out  tliat  clause  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  which  guarantees  the  surrender  of  fugitives.  If 
they  could  not  get  an  unconditional  repeal,  they  demanded  that  that  law 
should  be  so  modified  as  to  make  it  as  nearly  useless  as  possible.  Now,  I 
want  to  show  you  who  voted  for  these  resolutions.  When  the  vote  was  taken 
on  the  first  resolution  it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  —  yeas  41,  nays  32. 
You  will  find  that  this  is  a  strict  party  vote,  between  the  l)emocrats  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  Black  Republicans  on  the  other.  [Cries  of  "  White,  white," 
and  clamor.]  I  know  your  name,  and  always  call  tilings  by  their  right  name. 
The  point  1  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  is  this :  tlnit  these  resolutions  were 
adopted  on  the  7th  day  of  February,  and  that  on  the  8th  they  went  into  an 
election  for  a  United  States  Senator,  and  that  day  every  man  who  voted  for 
these  resolutions,  with  but  two  exceptions,  voted  for  Lincoln  for  the  United 
States  Senate.  ["  Give  us  their  names."]  I  will  read  the  names  over  to  you 
if  you  want  them,  but  I  believe  your  object  is  to  occupy  my  time. 

On  the  next  resolution  the  vote  stood — yeas  33,  nays  40;  and  on  the 
third  resolution,  —  yeas  35,  nays  47.  I  wish  to  impress  it  upon  you  that 
every  man  who  voted  for  those  resolutious,  with  but  two  exceptions,  voted  on 
the  next  day  for  Lincoln  for  United  States  Senator.  Bear  in  mind  that  the 
members  who  thus  voted  for  Lincoln  were  elected  to  the  Legislature  pledged 
to  vote  for  no  man  for  office  under  the  State  or  Federal  Government  who  was 
not  committed  to  this  Black  Eepublican  platform.  They  were  all  so  pledged. 
Mr.  Turner,  who  stands  by  me,  and  who  then  represented  you,  and  who 
says  that  he  wrote  those  resolutions,  voted  for  Lincoln,  when  he  was  pledged 
not  to  do  so  unless  Lincoln  was  in  favor  of  those  resolutions.  I  now  ask  ^Ir. 
Turner  [turning  to  Mr.  Turner],  did  you  violate  your  pledge  in  voting  for 
l\Ir.  Lincoln,  or  did  he  commit  himself  to  your  platform  before  you  cast  your 
vote  for  him  ? 

I  could  go  through  the  whole  list  of  names  here,  and  show  you  that  all  the 
Black  Eepublicans  in  the  Legislature,  who  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  had  voted 
on  the  day  previous  for  these  resolutions.  For  instance,  here  are  the  names 
of  Sargent  and  Little,  of  Jo  Daviess  and  Carroll,  Thomas  J.  Turner  of  Stephen- 
son, Lawrence  of  Boone  and  McHenry,  Swan  of  Lake,  Pinckney  of  Ogle  County, 
and  Lyman  of  Winnebago.  Thus  you  see  every  member  from  your  Congres- 
sional District  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  they  were  pledged  not  to  vote  for 
him  unless  he  was  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  no  more  Slave  States,  the  pro- 
hibition of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  to-day  that  he  is  not  pledged  to  any  such  doctrine. 
Eitlier  INIr.  Lincoln  was  then  committed  to  those  propositions,  or  Mr.  Turner 
violated  his  pledges  to  you  when  he  voted  for  him.  Either  Lincoln  was 
pledged  to  each  one  of  those  propositions,  or  else  every  Black  Republican 
Representative  from  this  Congressional  District  violated  his  pledge  of  honor 
to  his  constituents  by  voting  for  him.  I  ask  you  which  horn  of  the  dilemma 
will  you  take  ?  Will  you  hold  Lincoln  up  to  the  platform  of  his  party,  or 
will  you  accuse  every  Representative  you  had  in  the  Legislature  of  violating 
his  pledge  of  honor  to  his  constituents  ?     There  is  no  escape  for  you.     Either 


126  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Mr.  Lincolu  was  committed  to  those  propositions,  or  your  members  violated 
their  faith.  Take  either  horn  of  the  dilemma  you  choose.  There  is  no  dodg- 
ing the  question  ;  I  want  Lincoln's  answer.  He  says  he  was  not  pledged  to 
repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  that  he  does  not  quite  like  to  do  it;  he  will  not 
introduce  a  law  to  repeal  it,  but  thinks  there  ought  to  be  some  law  ;  he  does 
not  tell  what  it  ought  to  be ;  upon  the  whole,  he  is  altogether  undecided,  and 
don't  know  what  to  think  or  do.  That  is  the  substance  of  his  answer  upon 
the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  I  put  the  question  to  him  distinctly, 
whether  he  indorsed  that  part  of  the  Black  Republican  platform  wliich  calls 
for  the  entire  abrogation  and  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  He  answers. 
No  !  that  he  does  not  indorse  that ;  but  he  does  not  tell  what  he  is  for,  or 
what  he  will  vote  for.  His  answer  is,  in  fact,  no  answer  at  all.  Why  cannot 
he  speak  out,  and  say  what  he  is  for,  and  what  he  will  do  ? 

In  regard  to  there  being  no  more  Slave  States,  he  is  not  pledged  to  that. 
He  would  not  like,  he  says,  to  be  put  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to 
vote  one  way  or  another  upon  that  question.  I  pray  you,  do  not  put  him  in 
a  position  that  would  embarrass  him  so  much.  Gentlemen,  if  he  goes  to  the 
Senate,  he  may  be  put  in  that  position,  and  then  which  way  will  he  vote  ? 

A  Voice  :  How  will  you  vote  ? 

Mr.  Douglas  :  I  will  vote  for  the  admission  of  just  such  a  State  as  by  the 
form  of  their  constitution  the  people  show  they  want :  if  they  want  slavery, 
they  shall  have  it ;  if  they  prohibit  slavery,  it  shall  be  prohibited.  They  can 
form  their  institutions  to  please  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  ; 
and  I,  for  one,  stand  ready  to  receive  them  into  the  Union.  Why  cannot 
your  Black  Eepublican  candidates  talk  out  as  plain  as  that  when  they  are 
questioned  ? 

I  do  not  want  to  cheat  any  man  out  of  his  vote.  No  man  is  deceived  in 
regard  to  my  principles  if  I  have  the  power  to  express  myself  in  terms  explicit 
enough  to  convey  my  ideas. 

Mr.  Lincoln  made  a  speech  when  he  was  nominated  for  the  United  States 
Senate  which  covers  all  these  Abolition  platforms.  He  there  lays  down  a 
proposition  so  broad  in  its  Abolitionism  as  to  cover  the  whole  ground.  ■ 

"  In  my  opiuiou  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have 
been  reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe 
this  government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  house  to  f\xll,  hut  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become 
all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  fui-- 
ther  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it 
is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it 
shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  —  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South." 

There  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  lays  down  the  doctrine  that  this  Union 
cannot  endure  divided  as  our  fathers  made  it,  with  Free  and  Slave  States.  He 
says  they  must  all  become  one  thing,  or  all  the  other ;  that  they  must  all  be 
free  or  all  slave,  or  else  the  Union  cannot  continue  to  exist ;  it  being  his  opin- 
ion that  to  admit  any  more  Slave  States,  to  continue  to  divide  tlie  Union 
into  Free  and  Slave  States,  will  dissolve  it.  I  want  to  know  of  Mr.  Lincoln 
whether  he  will  vote  for  the  admission  of  another  Slave  State. 

He  tells  you  the  Union  cannot  exist  unless  the  States  are  all  free  or  all 
slave;  he  tells  you  that  he  is  opposed  to  making  them  all  slave,  and  hence  he 
is  for  making  them  all  free,  in  order  tliat  tlie  Union  may  exist ;  and  yet  he 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  127 

will  not  say  that  he  will  not  vote  against  another  Slave  State,  knowing  that 
the  Union  must  be  dissolved  if  he  votes  for  it.  I  ask  you  if  that  is  fair  deal- 
ino;  ?  The  true  intent  and  inevitable  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  his  first 
Springfield  speech  is,  that  he  is  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave 
States  under  any  circumstance.  If  he  is  so  opposed,  why  not  say  so  ?  If  he 
believes  this  Union  cannot  endure  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  that 
they  must  all  become  free  in  order  to  save  the  Union,  he  is  bound  as  an  hon- 
est man  to  vote  against  any  more  Slave  States.  If  he  believes  it,  he  is  bound 
to  do  it.  Show  me  that  it  is  my  duty,  in  order  to  save  the  Union,  to  do  a 
particular  act,  and  I  will  do  it  if  the  Constitution  does  not  prohibit  it.  I  am 
not  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  under  any  circumstances.  I  will  pursue 
no  course  of  conduct  that  will  give  just  cause  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union. 
The  hope  of  the  friends  of  freedom  throughout  the  world  rests  upon  the  per- 
petuity of  this  Union.  The  down-trodden  and  oppressed  people  who  are 
suffering  under  European  despotism  all  look  with  hope  and  anxiety  to  the 
American  Union  as  the  only  resting  place  and  permanent  home  of  freedom 
and  self-government. 

Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  he  believes  that  this  Union  cannot  continue  to 
endure  with  Slave  States  in  it,  and  yet  he  will  not  tell  you  distinctly  whether 
he  will  vote  for  or  against  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States,  but  says 
he  would  not  like  to  be  put  to  tlie  test.  I  do  not  think  he  will  be  put  to  the 
test.  I  do  not  think  that  the  people  of  Illinois  desire  a  man  to  represent 
them  who  would  not  like  to  be  put  to  the  test  on  the  performance  of  a  high 
constitutional  duty.  I  will  retire  in  shame  from  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  when  I  am  not  willing  to  be  put  to  the  test  in  the  performance  of  my 
duty.  I  have  been  put  to  severe  tests.  I  have  stood  by  my  principles  in 
fair  weather  and  in  foul,  in  the  sunshine  and  in  the  rain.  I  have  defended 
the  great  principles  of  self-government  here  among  you  when  Northern  senti- 
ment ran  in  a  torrent  against  me,  and  I  have  defended  that  same  great  prin- 
ciple when  Southern  sentiment  came  down  like  an  avalanche  upon  me.  I 
was  not  afraid  of  any  test  they  put  to  me.  I  knew  I  was  right ;  I  knew  my 
principles  were  sound ;  I  knew  that  the  people  would  see  in  the  end  that  I 
had  done  right,  and  I  knew  that  the  God  of  heaven  would  smile  upon  me  if 
I  was  faithful  in  the  performance  of  my  duty. 

Mr.  Lincoln  makes  a  charge  of  corruption  against  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  and  two  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  and  attempts  to 
bolster  it  up  by  saying  that  I  did  the  same  against  the  Washington  "  Union." 
Suppose  I  did  make  that  charge  of  corruption  against  the  Washington 
"Union,"  when  it  was  true,  does  that  justify  him  in  making  a  false  charge 
against  me  and  others  ?  That  is  the  question  I  would  put.  He  says  that 
at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  and  before  it  was  passed,  there 
was  a  conspiracy  between  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  President  Pierce, 
President  Buchanan,  and  myself,  by  that  bill  and  the  decision  of  the  court  to 
break  down  the  barrier  and  establish  slavery  all  over  the  Union.  Does  he 
not  know  that  that  charge  is  historically  false  as  against  President  P)uchanan  ? 
He  knows  tliat  Mr.  Buclianan  was  at  that  time  in  England,  representing  this 
country  with  distinguished  ability  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  that  he  was 
there  for  a  long  time  before,  and  did  not  return  for  a  year  or  more  after.  He 
knows  that  to  be  true,  and  that  fact  proves  his  charge  to  be  false  as  against 
Mr.  Buchanan.  Then,  again,  I  wish  to  call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  at 
the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  passed,  the  Dred  Scott  case  was  not  before  the 
Supreme  Court  at  all ;  it  was  not  upon  the  docket  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  it 


128  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

had  not  been  brought  tliere  ;  and  the  Judges  in  all  probability  knew  nothing 
of  it.  Thus  the  history  of  the  country  proves  the  charge  to  be  false  as  against 
them.  As  to  President  Pierce,  his  high  character  as  a  man  of  integrity  and 
honor  is  enough  to  vindicate  him  from  such  a  charge  ;  and  as  to  myself,  I 
pronounce  the  charge  an  infamous  lie,  whenever  and  wherever  made,  and  by 
whomsoever  made.  I  am  willing  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  go  and  rake  up 
every  public  act  of  mine,  every  measure  I  have  introduced,  report  I  have 
made,  speech  delivered,  and  criticise  them ;  but  when  he  charges  upon  me  a 
corrupt  conspiracy  for  the  purpose  of  perverting  the  institutions  of  the  coun- 
try, I  brand  it  as  it  deserves.  I  say  the  history  of  the  country  proves  it  to 
be  false,  and  that  it  could  not  have  been  possible  at  the  time.  But  now  he 
tries  to  protect  himself  in  this  charge,  because  I  made  a  charge  against  the 
Washington  "  Union."  My  speech  in  the  Senate  against  the  Washington 
"  Union  "  was  made  because  it  advocated  a  revolutionary  doctrine,  by  declar- 
ing that  the  Free  States  had  not  the  right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  their 
own  limits.  Becaiise  I  made  that  charge  against  the  Washington  "  Union," 
Mr.  Lincoln  says  it  was  a  charge  against  ]\Ir.  Buchanan.  Suppose  it  was:  is 
Mr.  Lincoln  the  peculiar  defender  of  Mr.  Buchanan  ?  Is  he  so  interested  in  the 
Federal  Administration,  and  so  bound  to  it,  that  he  must  jump  to  the  rescue 
and  defend  it  from  every  attack  that  I  may  make  against  it  ?  I  understand 
the  whole  thing.  The  Washington  "  Union,"  under  tliat  most  corrupt  of  all 
men,  Cornelius  Wendell,  is  advocating  Mr.  Lincoln's  claim  to  the  Senate. 
Wendell  was  the  printer  of  the  last  Black  Eepublican  House  of  Eepresenta- 
tives  ;  he  was  a  candidate  before  the  present  Democratic  House,  but  was 
iguominiously  kicked  out;  and  then  he  took  the  money  which  he  had  made 
out  of  the  public  printing  by  means  of  the  Black  Eepublicans,  bought  the 
Washington  "  Union,"  and  is  now  publishing  it  in  the  name  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  and  advocating  Mr.  Lincoln's  election  to  the  Senate.  Mr. 
Lincoln  therefore  considers  an  attack  upon  Wendell  and  his  corrupt  gang  as 
a  personal  attack  upon  him.  This  only  proves  what  I  have  charged, — that 
there  is  an  alliance  between  Lincoln  and  his  supporters,  and  the  Federal 
office-holders  of  this  State,  and  Presidential  aspirants  out  of  it,  to  break  me 
down  at  home. 

Mr.  Lincoln  feels  bound  to  come  in  to  the  rescue  of  the  Washington 
"  Uuion."  In  that  speech  whicli  I  delivered  in  answer  to  the  Washington 
"  Union,"  I  made  it  distinctly  against  the  "  Union,"  and  against  the  "  Union  " 
alone.  I  did  not  choose  to  go  beyond  that.  If  I  have  occasion  to  attack  the 
President's  conduct,  I  will  do  it  in  language  that  will  not  be  misunderstood. 
When  I  differed  with  the  President,  I  spoke  out  so  that  you  all  heard  me. 
That  question  passed  away ;  it  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  my  principle,  by 
allowing  the  people  to  do  as  they  please  ;  and  there  is  an  end  of  the  contro- 
versy. Whenever  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  —  the  right  of  the 
people  to  make  their  own  Constitution,  and  come  into  the  Union  with  slavery 
or  without  it,  as  they  see  proper,  —  shall  again  arise,  you  will  find  me  stand- 
ing firm  in  defence  of  that  principle,  and  fighting  whoever  fights  it.  If  Mr. 
Buchanan  stands,  as  I  doubt  not  he  will,  by  the  recommendation  contained  in 
his  Message,  that  hereafter  all  State  constitutions  ought  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people  before  the  admission  of  the  State  into  the  Union,  he  will  find  me 
standing  by  him  firmly,  shoulder  to  shoulder,  in  carrying  it  out.  I  know  Mr. 
Lincoln's  object :  he  wants  to  divide  the  Democratic  party,  in  onler  that  he 
may  defeat  me  and  get  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  DouGL.\s's  time  here  expired,  and  he  stopped  on  the  moment. 


AND  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  129 


MR.   LINCOLN'S   REJOINDER. 


My  Friends  :  It  will  readily  occur  to  you  that  I  cannot,  in  half  an  hour, 
notice  all  the  things  that  so  able  a  man  as  Judge  Douglas  can  say  in  an  hour 
and  a  half;  and  I  hope,  therefore,  if  there  be  anything  that  he  has  said  upon 
which  you  would  like  to  hear  something  from  me,  but  which  I  omit  to  com- 
ment upon,  you  will  bear  in  mind  that  it  would  be  expecting  an  impossibility 
for  me  to  go  over  his  whole  ground.  I  can  but  take  up  some  of  the  points 
that  he  has  dwelt  upon,  and  employ  my  half-hour  specially  on  them. 

The  first  thing  I  have  to  say  to  you  is  a  word  in  regard  to  Judge  Douglas's 
declaration  about  the  "  vulgarity  and  blackguardism  "  in  the  audience,  —  that 
no  such  thing,  as  he  says,  was  shown  by  any  Democrat  while  I  was  speaking. 
Now,  I  only  wish,  by  way  of  reply  on  this  subject,  to  say  that  while  /  was 
speaking,  /  used  no  "  vulgarity  or  blackguardism  "  toward  any  Democrat. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  come  to  all  this  long  portion  of  the  Judge's  speech,  — 
perhaps  half  of  it, —  which  he  has  devoted  to  the  various  resolutions  and 
platforms  that  have  been  adopted  in  the  different  counties  in  the  different 
Congressional  Districts,  and  in  the  Illinois  Legislature,  which  he  supposes  are 
at  variance  with  the  positions  I  have  assumed  before  you  to-day.  It  is  true 
that  many  of  these  resolutions  are  at  variance  with  the  positions  I  have  here 
assumed.  All  I  have  to  ask  is  that  we  talk  reasonably  and  rationally  about 
it.  I  happen  to  know,  the  Judge's  opinion  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding, 
that  I  have  never  tried  to  conceal  my  opinions,  nor  tried  to  deceive  any 
one  in  reference  to  them.  He  may  go  and  examine  all  the  members  who 
voted  for  me  for  United  States  Senator  in  1855,  after  the  election  of  1854. 
They  were  pledged  to  certain  things  here  at  home,  and  were  determined  to 
have  pledges  from  me ;  and  if  he  will  find  any  of  these  persons  who  will  tell 
him  anything  inconsistent  with  what  I  say  now,  I  will  resign,  or  rather  retire 
from  the  race,  and  give  him  no  more  trouble.  The  plain  truth  is  this :  At 
the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  policy,  we  believed  there  was  a  new  era 
being  introduced  in  the  history  of  the  Republic,  which  tended  to  the  spread 
and  perpetuation  of  slavery.  But  in  our  opposition  to  that  measure  we  did 
not  agree  with  one  another  in  everything.  The  people  in  the  north  end  of 
the  State  were  for  stronger  measures  of  opposition  than  we  of  the  central  and 
southern  portions  of  the  State,  but  we  were  all  opposed  to  the  Nebraska 
doctrine.  We  had  that  one  feeling  and  that  one  sentiment  in  common.  You 
at  the  north  end  met  in  your  Conventions  and  passed  your  resolutions.  We 
in  the  middle  of  the  State  and  further  south  did  not  hold  such  Conventions 
and  pass  the  same  resolutions,  although  we  had  in  general  a  common  view 
and  a  common  sentiment.  So  that  these  meetings  which  the  Judge  has 
alluded  to,  and  the  resolutions  he  has  read  from,  were  local,  and  did  not 
spread  over  the  whole  State.  We  at  last  met  together  in  1856,  from  all  parts 
of  the  State,  and  we  agreed  upon  a  common  platform.  You,  who  held  more 
extreme  notions,  either  yielded  those  notions,  or,  if  not  wholly  yielding  them, 
agreed  to  yield  them  practically,  for  the  sake  of  embodying  the  opposition  to 
the  measures  which  the  opposite  party  were  pushing  forward  at  that  time. 
We  met  you  then,  and  if  there  was  anything  yielded,  it  was  for  practical  pur- 
poses. We  agreed  then  upon  a  platform  for  the  party  throughout  the  entire 
State  of  Illinois,  and  now  we  are  all  bound,  as  a  party,  to  that  platform.  And 
I  say  here  to  you,  if  any  one  expects  of  me  —  in  the  case  of  my  election  — 
that  I  will  do  anything  not  signified  by  our  Eepublican  platform  and  my 
answers  here  to-day,  I  tell  you  very  frankly  that  person  will  be  deceived. 

17 


130  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

I  do  not  ask  for  tlie  vote  of  any  one  who  supposes  that  I  have  secret  purposes 
or  pledges  that  T  dare  not  speak  out.  Cannot  the  Judge  be  satisfied  ?  If  he 
fears,  in  the  unfortunate  case  of  my  election,  that  my  going  to  Washington 
will  enable  me  to  advocate  sentiments  contrary  to  those  which  I  expressed 
when  you  voted  for  and  elected  me,  I  assure  him  that  his  fears  are  wholly 
needless  and  groundless.  Is  the  Judge  really  afraid  of  an}'-  such  thing  ?  I  '11 
tell  you  what  he  is  afraid  of.  He  is  afraid  we  'II  all  pull  together.  This  is 
what  alarms  him  more  than  anything  else.  For  my  part,  I  do  hope  that  all 
of  us,  entertaining  a  common  sentiment  in  opposition  to  what  appears  to  us  a 
design  to  nationalize  and  perpetuate  slavery,  will  waive  minor  differences  on 
questions  which  either  belong  to  the  dead  past  or  the  distant  future,  and  all 
pull  together  in  this  struggle.  What  are  your  sentiments  ?  If  it  be  true  that 
on  the  ground  which  I  occupy,  —  ground  which  I  occupy  as  frankly  and 
boldly  as  Judge  Douglas  does  his,  —  my  views,  though  partly  coinciding  with 
yours,  are  not  as  perfectly  in  accordance  with  your  feelings  as  his  are,  I  do 
say  to  you  in  all  candor,  go  for  him,  and  not  for  me.  I  hope  to  deal  in  all 
things  fairly  with  Judge  Douglas,  and  with  the  people  of  the  State,  in  this 
contest.  And  if  I  should  never  be  elected  to  any  office,  I  trust  I  may  go 
down  with  no  stain  of  falsehood  upon  my  reputation,  notwithstanding  the 
hard  opinions  Judge  Douglas  chooses  to  entertain  of  me. 

The  Judge  has  again  addressed  himself  to  the  Abolition  tendencies  of  a 
speech  of  mine  made  at  Springfield  in  June  last.  I  have  so  often  tried  to 
answer  what  he  is  always  saying  on  that  melancholy  theme  that  I  almost 
turn  with  disgust  from  the  discussion,  — ■  from  the  repetition  of  an  answer  to  it. 
I  trust  that  nearly  all  of  this  intelligent  audience  have  read  that  speech. 
If  you  have,  I  may  venture  to  leave  it  to  you  to  inspect  it  closely,  and  see 
whether  it  contains  any  of  those  "  bugaboos  "  which  frighten  Judge  Douglas. 

The  Judge  complains  that  I  did  not  fully  answer  his  questions.  If  I  have 
the  sense  to  comprehend  and  answer  those  questions,  I  have  done  so  fairly. 
If  it  can  be  pointed  out  to  me  how  I  can  more  fully  and  fairly  answer  him,  I 
aver  I  have  not  the  sense  to  see  how  it  is  to  be  done.  He  says  I  do  not  declare 
I  would  in  any  event  vote  for  the  admission  of  a  Slave  State  into  the  Union. 
If  I  have  been  fairly  reported,  he  will  see  that  I  did  give  an  explicit  answer 
to  his  interrogatories ;  I  did  not  merely  say  that  I  would  dislike  to  be  put  to 
the  test,  but  I  said  clearly,  if  I  were  put  to  the  test,  and  a  Territory  from 
which  slavery  had  been  excluded  should  present  herself  with  a  State  constitu- 
tion sanctioning  slavery,  —  a  most  extraordinary  thing,  and  wholly  unlikely  to 
happen,  —  I  did  not  see  how  I  could  avoid  voting  for  her  admission.  But  he 
refuses  to  understand  that  I  said  so,  and  he  wants  this  audience  to  understand 
that  I  did  not  say  so.  Yet  it  will  be  so  reported  in  the  printed  speech  that 
he  cannot  help  seeing  it. 

He  says  if  I  should  vote  for  the  admission  of  a  Slave  State  I  would  be 
voting  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  because  I  hold  that  the  Union  cannot 
permanently  exist  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  repeat  that  I  do  not  believe  this 
government  can  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free ;  yet  I  do  not 
admit,  nor  does  it  at  all  follow,  that  the  admission  of  a  single  Slave  State  will 
permanently  fix  the  character  and  establish  this  as  a  universal  slave  nation. 
The  Judge  is  very  happy  indeed  at  working  up  these  quibbles.  Before  leav- 
ing the  subject  of  answering  questions,  I  aver  as  my  confident  belief,  when 
you  come  to  see  our  speeches  in  print,  that  you  will  find  every  question 
which  he  has  asked  me  more  fairly  and  boldly  and  fully  answered  than  he  has 
answered  those  which  I  put  to   him.     Is  not  that  so  ?     The  two  speeches 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  131 

may  be  placed  side  by  side,  and  I  will  venture  to  leave  it  to  impartial 
judges  whether  his  questions  have  not  been  more  directly  and  circumstantially 
answered  than  mine. 

Judge  Douglas  says  he  made  a  charge  upon  the  editor  of  the  Washington 
"  Union,"  alone,  of  entertaining  a  purpose  to  rob  the  States  of  their  power  to 
exclude  slavery  from  their  limits.     I  undertake  to  say,  and  I  make  the  direct 
issue,  that  he  did  not  make   his  charge  against  the  editor  of  the  "  Union " 
alone.    I  will  undertake  to  prove  by  the  record  here  that  he  made  that  charge 
against  more  and  higher  dignitaries  than  the  editor  of  the  Washington  "  Union." 
I  am  quite  aware  that  he  was  shirking  and  dodging  around  the  form  in  which 
he  put  it,  but  I  can  make  it  manifest  that  he  levelled  his  "  fatal  blow  "  against 
more  persons  than  this  Washington  editor.     Will  he  dodge  it  now  by  alleging 
that  I  am  trying  to  defend  Mr.  Buchanan  against  the  charge  ?     Not  at  all. 
Am  I  not  making  the  same  cliarge  myself  ?     I  am  trying  to  show  that  you, 
Judge  Douglas,  are  a  witness  on  my  side.     I  am  not  defending  Buchanan,  and 
I  will  tell  Judge  Douglas  that  in  my  opinion,  when  he  made  that  charge,  he 
had  an  eye  farther  north  than  he  was  to-day.     He  was  then  fighting  against 
people  who  called  him  a  Black  Eepublican  and  an  Abolitionist.     It  is  mixed 
all  through  his  speech,  and  it  is  tolerably  manifest  that  his  eye  was  a  great 
deal  farther  north  than  it  is  to-day.     The  Judge  says  that  though  he  made 
this  charge,  Toombs  got  up  and  declared  there  was  not  a  man  in  the  United 
States,  except  the  editor  of  the  "  Union,"  who  was  in  favor  of  the  doctrines 
put  forth  in  that  article.     And  thereupon  I  understand  that  the  Judge  with- 
drew the  cliarge.     Although  he  had  taken  extracts  from  the  newspaper,  and 
then  from  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  to  show  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy 
to  bring  about  a  "  fatal  blow,"  by  which  the  States  were  to  be  deprived  of  the 
right  of  excluding  slavery,  it  all  went  to  pot  as  soon  as  Toombs  got  up  and 
told  him  it  was  not  true.     It  reminds  me  of  the  story  that  John  Phoenix,  the 
California  railroad  surveyor,  tells.     He  says  they  started  out  from  the  Plaza 
to  the  Mission  of  Dolores.     They  had  two  ways  of  determining  distances. 
One  was   by  a  chain  and  pins  taken  over  the  ground.     The  other  was  by  a 
"  go-it-ometer,"  —  an  invention  of  his  own, —  a  three-legged  instrument,  with 
which  he  computed  a  series  of  triangles  between  the  points.     At  night  he 
turned  to  the  chain-man  to  ascertain  what  distance  they  had  come,  and  found 
that  by  some  mistake  he  had  merely  dragged  the  chain  over  the  ground,  with- 
out keeping  any  record.     By  the  "go-it-ometer"  he  found  he  had  made  ten 
miles.     Being  sceptical  about  this,  he  asked  a  drayman  who  was  passing  how 
far  it  was  to  the  Plaza.     The  drayman  replied  it  was  just  half  a  mile ;  and 
the  surveyor  put  it  down  in  his  book,  —  just  as  Judge  Douglas  says,  after 
he  had  made  his  calculations  and  computations,  he  took  Toombs's  statement. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  after  Judge  Douglas  had  made  his  charge,  he  was  as 
easily  satisfied  about  its  truth  as  the  surveyor  was  of  the  drayman's  statement 
of  the  distance  to  the  Plaza.     Yet  it  is  a  fact  that  the  man  who  put  forth  all 
that  matter  which  Douglas  deemed  a  "  fatal  blow  "  at  State  sovereignty,  was 
elected  by  the  Democrats  as  public  printer. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  may  take  Judge  Douglas's  speech  of  March  22d, 
1858,  beginning  about  the  middle  of  page  21,  and  reading  to  the  bottom  of 
page  24,  and  you  will  find  the  evidence  on  wliich  I  say  tliat  he  did  not  make 
his  charge  against  the  editor  of  the  "  Union  "  alone.  I  cannot  stop  to  read  it, 
but  I  will  give  it  to  tlie  reporters.     Judge  Douglas  said  :  — 

"Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions  advanced  boldly  by  the 
Washington  '  Union  '  editorially,  and  apparently  authoritatively,  and  every  man  who 


132  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

questions  any  of  them  is  denounced  as  an  Abolitionist,  a  Free-soiler,  a  fanatic.  The 
propositions  are,  first,  that  the  primary  object  of  all  government  at  its  original  insti- 
tution is  the  protection  of  persons  and  property  ;  second,  tliat  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  declares  that  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States ;  and  that,  therefore, 
thirdly,  all  State  laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the  citizens  of 
one  State  from  settling  in  another  with  their  slave  property,  and  especially  declaring 
it  forfeited,  are  direct  violations  of  the  original  intention  of  the  Government  and 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and,  fourth,  that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves 
of  the  Northern  States  was  a  gross  outrage  on  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  as  it 
was  involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of  the  owner. 

"  Remember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the  '  Union'  on  the  17th  of  Nov- 
ember, and  on  the  18th  appeared  the  first  article,  giving  the  adhesion  of  the  '  Union' 
to  the  Lecompton  Constitution.     It  was  in  these  words  :  — 

"'Kansas  and  her  Constitution.  —  The  vexed  question  is  settled.  The  prob- 
lem is  solved.  The  dead  point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble  to  Kansas 
affairs  is  over  and  gone  — ' 

"  And  a  column,  nearly,  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when  you  come  to  look  into  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  you  find  the  same  doctrine  incorporated  in  it  which  was  put 
forth  editorially  in  the  'Union.'     What  is  it] 

" '  Article  7,  Section  1.  The  right  of  property  is  before  and  higher  than  any 
constitutional  sanction  ;  and  the  right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such  slave  and  its 
increase  is  the  same  and  as  invariable  as  the  right  of  the  owner  of  any  property 
whatever.' 

"  Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  Constitution  may  be  amended  after 
1864  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

"  '  But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  affect  the  right  of  property  in  the  ownership 
of  slaves.' 

"  It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  they  are 
identical  in  spirit  with  this  authoritative  article  in  the  Washington  '  Union '  of  the 
day  previous  to  its  indorsement  of  this  Constitution. 

"  When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  '  Union  '  of  the  1 7th  of  November,  followed  by 
the  glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  18th  of  November,  and  this 
clause  in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doctrine  that  a  State  has  no  right  to  pro- 
hibit slavery  within  its  limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  di  fatal  blow  being  struck  at  the 
sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union." 

Here  he  says,  "  Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions 
advanced  boldly,  and  apparently  aufJioritatively"  By  whose  authority.  Judge 
Douglas  ?  Again,  he  says  in  another  place,  "  It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses 
in  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  they  are  identical  in  spirit  with  this  authori- 
tative article."  Bi/  ivhosc  authority  ?  Who  do  you  mean  to  say  authorized  the 
publication  of  these  articles  ?  He  knows  that  the  Washington  "  Union  "  is 
considered  the  organ  of  the  Administration.  /  demand  of  Judge  Douglas  by 
whose  authority  be  meant  to  say  those  articles  were  published,  if  not  by  the 
authority  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  Cabinet  ?  I  defy  him 
to  show  whom  he  referred  to,  if  not  to  these  high  functionaries  in  the  Fed- 
eral Government.  More  than  this,  he  says  the  articles  in  that  paper  and  the 
provisions  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  are  "  identical,"  and,  being  identical, 
he  argues  that  the  authors  are  co-operating  and  conspiring  together.  He  does 
not  use  the  word  "  conspiring,"  but  what  other  construction  can  you  put  upon 
it  ?     He  winds  up  with  this  :  — 

"  When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  '  Union '  of  the  17th  of  November,  followed  by 
the  glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  18th  of  November,  and  this 


AND   STErHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  133 

clause  in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doctrine  that  a  State  has  no  right  to  pro- 
hibit slavery  within  its  limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  ^  fatal  hloiu  being  struck  at  the 
sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union." 

I  ask  him  if  all  this  fuss  was  made  over  the  editor  of  this  newspaper.  It 
would  be  a  terribly  "fatal  blow  "  indeed  which  a  single  man  could  strike, 
when  no  President,  no  Cabinet  officer,  no  member  of  Congress,  was  giving 
strength  and  efficiency  to  the  moment.  Out  of  respect  to  Judge  Donglas's 
good  sense  I  must  believe  he  did  n't  manufacture  his  idea  of  the  "  fatal "  char- 
acter of  that  blow  out  of  such  a  miserable  scapegrace  as  he  represents  that 
editor  to  be.  But  the  Judge's  eye  is  farther  south  now.  Then,  it  was  very 
peculiarly  and  decidedly  north.  His  hope  rested  on  the  idea  of  visiting  the 
great  "  Black  Eepublican  "  party,  and  making  it  the  tail  of  his  new  kite.  He 
knows  he  was  then  expecting  from  day  to  day  to  turn  Eepublican,  and  place 
himself  at  the  head  of  our  organization.  He  has  found  that  these  despised 
"  Black  Ilepublicans  "  estimate  him  by  a  standard  which  he  has  taught  them 
none  too  well.  Hence  he  is  crawling  back  into  his  old  camp,  and  you  will 
find  him  eventually  installed  in  full  fellowship  among  those  whom  he  was 
then  battling,  and  with  whom  he  now  pretends  to  be  at  such  fearful  variance. 
[Loud  applause,  and  cries  of  "  Go  on,  go  on."]  I  cannot,  gentlemen  ;  my  time 
has  expired. 


THIRD   JOINT  DEBATE,   AT  JONESBORO. 

September  15,  1858. 

MR.   DOUGLAS'S   SPEECH. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  I  appear  before  you  to-day  in  pursuance  of  a 
previous  notice,  and  have  made  arrangements  with  Mr.  Lincoln  to  divide 
time,  and  discuss  with  him  the  leading  political  topics  that  now  agitate  the 
country. 

Prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great  political  parties 
known  as  Whig  and  Democratic.  These  parties  differed  from  each  other  on 
certain  questions  which  were  then  deemed  to  be  important  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  Ptepublic.  Whig  and  Democrats  differed  about  a  bank,  the  tariff,  dis- 
tribution, the  specie  circular,  and  the  sub-treasury.  On  those  issues  we  went 
before  the  country  and  discussed  the  principles,  objects,  and  measures  of  the 
two  great  parties.  Each  of  the  parties  could  proclaim  its  principles  in  Loui- 
siana as  well  as  in  Massachusetts,  in  Kentucky  as  well  as  in  Hlinois.  Since 
that  period,  a  great  revolution  has  taken  place  in  the  formation  of  parties,  by 
which  they  now  seem  to  be  divided  by  a  geographical  line,  a  large  party  in 
the  North  being  arrayed  under  the  Abolition  or  Eepublican  banner,  in  hos- 
tility to  the  Southern  States,  Southern  people,  and  Southern  institutions.  It 
becomes  important  for  us  to  inquire  how  this  transformation  of  parties  has 
occurred,  made  from  those  of  national  principles  to  geographical  factions. 
You  remember  that  in  1850  —  this  country  was  agitated  from  its  centre  to  its 
circumference  about  this  slavery  question  —  it  became  necessary  for  the  leaders 
of  the  great  Whig  party  and  the  leaders  of  the  great  Democratic  party  to  post- 


134  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

pone,  for  the  time  being,  their  particular  disputes,  and  unite  first  to  save  the 
Union  before  they  should  quarrel  as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  was  to  be  gov- 
erned. During  the  Congress  of  1849-50,  Henry  Clay  was  the  leader  of  the 
Union  men,  supported  by  Cass  and  Webster,  and  the  leaders  of  the  Democracy 
and  the  leaders  of  the  Whigs,  in  opposition  to  Northern  Abolitionists  or 
Southern  Disunionists.  That  great  contest  of  1850  resulted  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Compromise  measures  of  that  year,  which  measures  rested  on  the 
great  principle  that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this  Union 
ought  to  be  permitted  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  to  no  other  limitation  than  that  which  the  Federal  Constitution 
imposes. 

I  now  wish  to  ask  you  whether  that  principle  was  right  or  wrong  which 
guaranteed  to  every  State  and  every  community  the  right  to  form  and  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  These  measures  were  adopted, 
as  I  have  previously  said,  by  the  joint  action  of  the  Union  Whigs  and  Union 
Democrats  in  opposition  to  Northern  Abolitionists  and  Southern  Disunionists. 
In  1858,  when  the  Whig  party  assembled,  at  Baltimore,  in  National  Conven- 
tion for  the  last  time,  they  adopted  the  principle  of  the  Compromise  Measures 
of  1850  as  their  rule  of  party  action  in  the  future.  One  month  thereafter  the 
Democrats  assembled  at  the  same  place  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  the  Presi- 
dency, and  declared  the  same  great  principle  as  tlie  rule  of  action  by  which 
the  Democracy  would  be  governed.  The  Presidential  election  of  1852  was 
fought  on  that  basis.  It  is  true  that  the  Whigs  claimed  special  merit  for  the 
adoption  of  those  measures,  because  they  asserted  that  their  great  Clay  ori- 
ginated them,  their  god-like  Webster  defended  them,  and  their  Fillmore 
signed  the  bill  making  them  the  law  of  the  land ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Democrats  claimed  special  credit  for  the  Democracy,  upon  the  ground  that  we 
gave  twice  as  many  votes  in  both  Houses  of  Congress  for  the  passage  of  these 
measures  as  the  Whig  party. 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  Presidential  election  of  1852,  the  Whigs  were 
pledged  by  their  platform  and  their  candidate  to  the  principle  of  the  Compro- 
mise Measures  of  1850,  and  the  Democracy  were  likewise  pledged  by  our 
principles,  our  platform,  and  our  candidate  to  the  same  line  of  policy,  to  pre- 
serve peace  and  quiet  between  the  different  sections  of  this  Union.  Since 
that  period  the  Whig  party  has  been  transformed  into  a  sectional  party,  under 
the  name  of  the  liepublican  party,  whilst  the  Democratic  party  continues  the 
same  national  party  it  was  at  that  day.  All  sectional  men,  all  men  of  Aboli- 
tion sentiments  and  principles,  no  matter  whether  they  were  old  Abolitionists 
or  had  been  Whigs  or  Democrats,  rally  under  the  sectional  Eepublican  banner, 
and  consequently  all  National  men,  all  Union-loving  men,  whether  Whigs, 
Democrats,  or  by  whatever  name  they  have  been  known,  ought  to  rally  under 
the  Stars  and  Stripes  in  defence  of  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it, 
aud  of  the  Union  as  it  has  existed  under  the  Constitution. 

How  has  this  departure  from  the  faith  of  the  Democracy  aud  the  faith  of 
the  Whig  party  been  accomplished  ?  In  1854,  certain  restless,  ambitious, 
and  disappointed  politicians  throughout  the  land  took  advantage  of  the  tem- 
porary excitement  created  by  the  Nebraska  bill  to  try  and  dissolve  the  old 
Whig  party  and  the  old  Democratic  party,  to  Abolitionize  their  members,  and 
lead  them,  bound  hand  and  foot,  captives  into  the  Abolition  camp.  In  the 
State  of  New  York  a  convention  was  held  by  some  of  these  men,  and  a  plat- 
form adopted,  every  plank  of  which  was  as  black  as  night,  each  one  relating  to 
the  negro,  and  not  one  referrino-  to  the  interests  of  the  white  man.     That 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  135 

example  was  followed  throughout  the  Northern  States,  the  effect  being  made 
to  combine  all  the  Free  States  in  hostile  array  against  the  Slave  States.  The 
men  who  thus  thought  that  they  could  build  up  a  great  sectional  party,  and 
through  its  organization  control  the  political  destinies  of  this  country,  based 
all  their  hopes  on  the  single  fact  that  the  North  was  the  stronger  division  of 
the  nation,  and  hence,  if  the  North  could  be  combined  against  the  South,  a 
sure  victory  awaited  their  efforts,  I  am  doing  no  more  than  justice  to  the 
truth  of  history  when  I  say  that  in  this  State,  Abraham  Lincoln,  on  behalf  of 
the  Whigs,  and  Lyman  Trumbull,  on  behalf  of  the  Democrats,  were  the 
leaders  who  undertook  to  perform  this  grand  scheme  of  Abolitionizing  the  two 
parties  to  which  they  belonged.  They  liad  a  private  arrangement  as  to  what 
should  be  the  political  destiny  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties  before  they 
went  into  the  operation.  The  arrangement  was  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  to  take 
the  old  line  Whigs  with  him,  claiming  that  he  was  still  as  good  a  Whig  as 
ever,  over  to  the  Abolitionists,  and  Mr.  Trumbull  was  to  run  for  Congress  in 
the  Belleville  District,  and,  claiming  to  be  a  good  Democrat,  coax  the  old 
Democrats  into  the  Abolition  camp,  and  when,  by  the  joint  efforts  of  the 
Abolitionized  Whios,  the  Abolitionized  Democrats,  and  the  old  line  Abolition 
and  Free-soil  party  of  this  State,  they  should  secure  a  majority  in  the  Legisla- 
ture. Lincoln  was  tlien  to  be  made  United  States  Senator  in  Shields's  place, 
Trumbull  remaining  in  Congress  until  I  should  be  accommodating  enough  to 
die  or  resign,  and  give  him  a  chance  to  follow  Lincoln.  That  was  a  very  nice 
little  bargain  so  far  as  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  were  concerned,  if  it  had  been 
carried  out  in  good  faith,  and  friend  Lincoln  had  attained  to  senatorial  dignity 
according  to  the  contract.  They  went  into  the  contest  in  every  part  of  the 
State,  calling  upon  all  disappointed  politicians  to  join  in  the  crusade  against 
the  Democracy,  and  appealed  to  the  prevailing  sentiments  and  prejudices  in 
all  the  northern  counties  of  the  State.  In  three  Congressional  Districts  in  the 
north  end  of  the  State  they  adopted,  as  the  platform  of  this  new  party  thus 
formed  by  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  in  connection  with  the  Abolitionists,  all  of 
those  principles  which  aimed  at  a  warfare  on  the  part  of  the  North  against 
the  South.  They  declared  in  that  platform  that  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  to 
be  applied  to  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  north  as  well  as  south 
of  36  deg.  30  min.,  and  not  only  to  all  the  territory  we  then  had,  but  all  that 
we  might  hereafter  acquire ;  that  hereafter  no  more  Slave  States  should  be 
admitted  into  this  Union,  even  if  the  people  of  such  State  desired  slavery ; 
that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  should  be  absolutely  and  unconditionally  repealed  ; 
that  slavery  should  be  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  that  the  slave- 
trade  should  be  abolished  between  the  different  States ;  and,  in  fact,  every 
article  in  their  creed  related  to  this  slavery  question,  and  pointed  to  a 
Northern  geographical  party  in  hostility  to  the  Southern  States  of  this  Union. 
Such  were  their  principles  in  Northern  Illinois.  A  little  further  south  they 
became  bleached,  and  grew  paler  just  in  proportion  as  public  sentiment  mod- 
erated and  changed  in  this  direction.  They  were  Eepublicans  or  Abolitionists 
in  the  North,  anti-Nebraska  men  down  about  Springfield,  and  in  this  neigh- 
borhood  they  contented  themselves  with  talking  about  the  inexpediency  of 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  In  the  extreme  northern  counties 
they  brought  out  men  to  canvass  the  State  whose  complexion  suited  their 
political  creed ;  and  hence  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  was  to  be  found  there, 
following  General  Cass,  and  attempting  to  speak  on  behalf  of  Lincoln,  Trum- 
bull, and  Abolitionism,  against  that  illustrious  senator.  Why,  they  brought 
Fred  Douglass  to  Freeport,  when  I  was  addressing  a  meeting  there,  in  a  car- 


136  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 


riage  driven  by  the  white  owner,  the  negro  sitting  inside  with  the  white  lady 
and  her  daughter.     When  I  got  through  canvassing  the  northern  counties  that 
year,  and  progressed  as  far  south  as  Springfield,  I  was  met  and  opposed  in 
discussion  by  Lincoln,   Lovejoy,  Trumbull,  and  Sidney  Breese,  who  were  on 
one  side.     Father  Giddings,  the  high-priest  of  Abolitionism,  had  just  been 
there,  and  Chase  came  about  the  time   I  left.     ["Why  didn't  you   shoot 
him  ? "]     I  did  take  a  running  shot  at  them  ;  but  as  I  was  single-handed 
against  the  white,  black,  and  mixed  drove,  I  had  to  use  a  shot-gun  and  fire 
into  the  crowd,  instead  of  taking  them  off  singly  with  a  rifle.     Trumbull  had 
for  his  lieutenants,  in  aiding  him  to  Abolitionize  the  Democracy,  such  men  as 
John  Wentworth  of  Chicago,  Governor  Eeynolds  of  Belleville,  Sidney  Breese 
of  Carlisle,  and  John  Dougherty  of  Union,  each  of  whom  modified  his  opinions 
to  suit  the  locality  he  was  in.     Dougherty,  for  instance,  would  not  go  much 
further  than  to  talk  about  the  inexpediency  of  the  Nebraska  bill,  whilst  his 
allies  at  Chicago  advocated  negro  citizenship  and  negro  equality,  putting  the 
white  man  and  the  negro  on  the  same  basis  under  the  law.     Now,  these  men, 
four  years  ago,  were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to  break  down  the  Democracy ; 
to-day  they  are  again  acting  together  for  the  same  purpose  !     They  do  not 
hoist  the  same  flag,  they  do  not  own  the  same  principles  or  profess  the  same 
faith,  but  conceartheir  union  for  the  sake  of  policy.    In  the  northern  counties, 
you  find  that  all  the  conventions  are  called  in  the  name  of  the  Black  Eepubli- 
can  party ;  at  Springfield,  they  dare  not  call  a  Eepublican  Convention,  but 
invite  all  the  enemies  of  the  Democracy  to  unite ;  and  when  they  get  down 
into  Egypt,  Trumbull  issues  notices  calling  upon  the  "  Free  Democracy "  to 
assemble  and  hear  him  speak.     I  have  one  of  the  handbills  calling  a  Trumbull 
meeting  at  Waterloo  the  other  day,  which  I  received  there,  which  is  in  the 
following  language  :  — 

A  meeting  of  the  Free  Democracy  will  take  place  in  Waterloo,  on  Monday,  Sept. 
13th  inst.,  whereat  Hon.  Lyman  Trumbull,  Hon.  John  Baker  and  others  will  address 
the  people  upon  the  different  political  topics  of  the  day.  Members  of  all  parties  are 
cordially  invited  to  be  present,  and  hear  and  determine  for  themselves. 

The  Monroe  Free  Democracy. 

What  is  that  name  of  "  Free  Democrats  "  put  forth  for,  unless  to  deceive 
the  people,  and  make  them  believe  that  Trumbull  and  his  followers  are  not 
the  same  party  as  that  which  raises  the  black  flag  of  Abolitionism  in  the 
northern  part  of  this  State,  and  makes  war  upon  the  Democratic  party 
throughout  the  State  ?  When  I  put  that  question  to  them  at  Waterloo  on 
Saturday  last,  one  of  them  rose  and  stated  that  they  had  changed  their  name 
for  political  effect,  in  order  to  get  votes.  There  was  a  candid  admission. 
Their  object  in  changing  their  party  organization  and  principles  in  different 
localities  was  avowed  to  be  an  attempt  to  cheat  and  deceive  some  portion  of 
the  people  until  after  the  election.  Why  cannot  a  political  party  that  is  con- 
scious of  the  rectitude  of  its  purposes  and  the  soundness  of  its  principles 
declare  them  everywhere  alike  ?  I  w^ould  disdain  to  hold  any  political  prin- 
ciples that  I  could  not  avow  in  the  same  terms  in  Kentucky  that  I  declared 
in  Illinois,  in  Charleston  as  well  as  in  Chicago,  in  New  Orleans  as  well  as  in 
New  York.  So  loncj  as  we  live  under  a  Constitution  common  to  all  the  States, 
our  political  faith  ought  to  be  as  broad,  as  liberal,  and  just  as  that  Constitution 
itself,  and  should  be  proclaimed  alike  in  every  portion  of  the  Union. 

But  it  is  apparent  that  our  opponents  find  it  necessary,  for  partisan  effect, 
to  change  their  colors  in  different  counties  in  order  to  catch  the  popular 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  137 

breeze,  and  hope  with  these  discordant  materials  combined  together  to  secure 
a  majority  in  the  Legishiture  for  the  purpose  of  putting  down  the  Democratic 
party.  This  combination  did  succeed  in  1854  so  far  as  to  elect  a  majority  of 
their  confederates  to  the  Legislature,  and  the  first  important  act  which  they 
performed  was  to  elect  a  Senator  in  the  place  of  the  eminent  and  gallant 
Senator  Shields.  His  term  expired  in  the  United  States  Senate  at  that  time, 
and  he  had  to  be  crushed  by  the  Abolition  coalition  for  the  simple  reason  that 
he  would  not  join  in  their  conspiracy  to  wage  war  against  one-half  of  the 
Union.  That  was  the  only  objection  to  General  Shields.  He  had  served  the 
people  of  the  State  with  ability  in  the  Legislature,  he  had  served  you  with 
fidelity  and  ability  as  Auditor,  he  had  performed  his  duties  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  whole  country  at  the  head  of  the  Land  Department  at  Washington,  he 
had  covered  the  State  and  the  Union  with  immortal  glory  on  the  bloody  fields 
of  Mexico  in  defence  of  the  honor  of  our  flag,  and  yet  he  had  to  be  stricken 
down  by  this  unholy  combination.  And  for  what  cause  ?  Merely  because  he 
would  not  join  a  combination  of  one  half  of  the  States  to  make  war  upon  the 
other  half,  after  having  poured  out  his  heart's  blood  for  all  the  States  in  the 
Union.  Trumbull  was  put  in  his  place  by  Abolitionism.  How  did  Trumbull 
get  there  ?  Before  the  Abolitionists  would  consent  to  go  into  an  election  for 
United  States  Senator  they  required  all  the  members  of  this  new  combination 
to  show  their  hands  upon  this  question  of  Abolitionism.  Lovejoy,  one  of 
their  high-priests,  brought  in  resolutions  defining  the  Abolition  creed,  and 
required  them  to  commit  themselves  on  it  by  their  votes,  —  yea  or  nay.  In 
that  creed,  as  laid  down  by  Lovejoy,  they  declared,  first,  that  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  must  be  put  on  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  north  as  well 
as  south  of  36  deg.  30  min.,  and  that  no  more  territory  should  ever  be  acquired 
unless  slavery  was  at  first  prohibited  therein ;  second,  that  no  more  States 
should  ever  be  received  into  the  Union  unless  slavery  was  first  prohibited,  by 
Constitutional  provision,  in  such  States ;  third,  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law 
must  be  immediately  repealed,  or,  failing  in  that,  then  such  amendments  were 
to  be  made  to  it  as  would  render  it  useless  and  inefficient  for  the  objects  for 
which  it  was  passed,  etc.  The  next  day  after  these  resolutions  were  offered 
they  were  voted  upon,  part  of  them  carried,  and  the  others  defeated,  the  same 
men  who  voted  for  them,  with  only  two  exceptions,  voting  soon  after  for 
Abraham  Lincoln  as  their  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  He  came 
within  one  or  two  votes  of  being  elected,  but  he  could  not  quite  get  the  num- 
ber required,  for  the  simple  reason  that  his  friend  Trumbull,  who  was  a  party 
to  tlie  l^argain  by  which  Lincoln  was  to  take  Shields's  place,  controlled  a  few 
Abolitionized  Democrats  in  the  Legislature,  and  would  not  allow  them  all  to 
vote  for  him,  thus  wronging  Lincoln  by  permitting  him  on  each  ballot  to  be 
almost  elected,  but  not  quite,  until  he  forced  them  to  drop  Lincoln  and  elect 
him  (Trumbull),  in  order  to  unite  the  party.  Thus  you  find  that  although 
the  Legislature  was  carried  that  year  by  the  bargain  between  Trumbull, 
Lincoln,  and  the  Abolitionists,  and  the  union  of  these  discordant  elements  in 
one  harmonious  party,  yet  Trumbull  violated  his  pledge,  and  played  a  Yankee 
trick  on  Lincoln  when  they  came  to  divide  tiie  spoils.  Perhaps  you  would 
like  a  little  evidence  on  this  point.  If  you  would,  I  will  call  Colonel  James 
H.  Matheny,  of  Springfield,  to  the  stand,  Mr.  Lincoln's  especial  confidential 
friend  for  the  last  twenty  years,  and  see  what  he  will  say  upon  the  subject  of 
this  bargain.  Matheny  is  now  tlie  Black  Eepublican,  or  Abolition,  candidate 
for  Congress  in  the  Springfield  District  against  the  gallant  Colonel  Harris,  and 
is  making  speeches  all  over  that  part  of  the  State  against  me  and  in  favor  of 

18 


138  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Lincoln,  in  concert  with  Trumbull.  He  ought  to  be  a  good  witness,  and  I 
will  read  an  extract  from  a  speech  which  he  made  in  1856,  when  he  was  mad 
because  his  friend  Lincoln  had  been  cheated.  It  is  one  of  numerous  speeches 
of  the  same  tenor  that  were  made  about  that  time,  exposing  this  bargain 
between  Lincoln,  Trumbull,  and  the  Abolitionists.     Matheny  then  said  :  — 

"  The  "Whigs,  xYbolitionists,  Know-Nothings,  and  renegade  Democrats  made  a 
solemn  compact  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  this  State  against  the  Democracy,  on 
this  plan  :  1st.  That  they  would  all  combine  and  elect  Mr.  Trumbull  to  Congress, 
and  thereby  cany  his  district  for  the  Legislature,  in  order  to  throw  all  the  strength 
that  could  be  obtained  into  that  body  against  the  Democrats.  2d.  Tliat  when  the 
Legislature  sliould  meet,  the  officers  of  that  body,  such  as  Speaker,  clerks,  door- 
keepers, etc.,  would  be  given  to  the  Abolitionists ;  and  3d.  That  the  Whigs  were  to 
have  the  United  States  Senator.  That,  accordingly,  in  good  faith,  Trumbull  was 
elected  to  Congress,  and  his  district  carried  for  the  Legislature,  and,  when  it  con- 
vened, the  Abolitionists  got  all  the  officers  of  that  body ;  and,  thus  far,  the  '  bond  ' 
was  fairly  executed.  The  Whigs,  on  their  part,  demanded  the  election  of  Abraham 
Lincoln  to  the  United  States  Senate,  that  the  bond  might  be  fulfilled,  the  other 
parties  to  the  contract  having  already  secured  to  themselves  all  that  was  called  for. 
But,  in  the  most  perfidious  manner,  they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  the 
mean,  lowdived,  sneaking  Trumbull  succeeded,  by  pledging  all  that  was  required  by 
any  party,  in  thrusting  Lincoln  aside,  and  foisting  himself,  an  excrescence  from  the 
rotten  bowels  of  the  Democracy,  into  the  United  States  Senate  :  and  thus  it  has 
ever  been,  that  an  honest  man  makes  a  bad  bargain  when  be  conspires  or  contracts 
with  rogues." 

Matheny  thought  that  his  friend  Lincoln  made  a  bad  bargain  when  he 
conspired  and  contracted  with  such  rogues  as  Trumbull  and  his  Abolition 
associates  in  that  campaign.  Lincoln  was  shoved  off  the  track,  and  he  and 
his  friends  all  at  once  began  to  mope,  became  sour  and  mad,  and  disposed  to 
tell,  but  dare  not ;  and  thus  they  stood  for  a  long  time,  until  the  Abolitionists 
coaxed  and  flattered  him  back  by  their  assurances  that  he  should  certainly  be  a 
senator  in  Douglas's  place.  In  that  way  the  Abolitionists  have  been  enabled 
to  hold  Lincoln  to  the  alliance  up  to  this  time,  and  now  they  have  brought  him 
into  a  fight  against  me,  and  he  is  to  see  if  he  is  again  to  be  cheated  by  them. 
Lincoln  this  time,  though,  required  more  of  them  than  a  promise,  and  holds 
their  bond,  if  not  security,  that  Lovejoy  shall  not  cheat  him  as  Trumbull  did. 

When  the  Kepublican  Convention  assembled  at  Springfield,  in  June  last, 
for  the  purpose  of  nominating  State  officers  only,  the  Abolitionists  could  not 
get  Lincoln  and  his  friends  into  it  until  they  would  pledge  themselves  that 
Lincoln  should  be  their  candidate  for  the  Senate ;  and  you  will  find,  in  proof 
of  this,  that  that  Convention  passed  a  resolution  unanimously  declaring  that 
Abraham  Lincoln  was  the  "first,  last,  and  only  choice"  of  the  Eepublicans 
for  United  States  Senator.  He  was  not  willing  to  have  it  understood  that  he 
was  merely  their  first  choice,  or  their  last  choice,  but  their  only  choice.  The 
Black  Kepublican  party  had  nobody  else.  Browning  was  nowhere ;  Governor 
Bissell  was  of  no  account ;  Archie  Williams  was  not  to  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration; John  Wentworth  was  not  worth  mentioning;  John  M.  Palmer 
was  degraded ;  and  their  party  presented  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  hav- 
ing but  one,  —  the  first,  the  last,  and  only  choice  for  the  Senate.  Suppose 
that  Lincoln  should  die,  what  a  horrible  condition  the  Eepublican  party  would 
be  in  !  They  would  have  nobody  left.  They  have  no  other  choice,  and  it  was 
necessary  for  them  to  put  themselves  before  the  wcndd  in  this  ludicrous, 
ridiculous  attitude  of  having  no  other  choice,  in  order  to  quiet  Lincoln's  sus- 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  139 

picions,  aud  assure  him  that  he  was  not  to  be  cheated  by  Lovejoy,  and  the 
trickery  by  which  Trumbull  outgeueralled  him.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  think 
they  will  have  a  nice  time  of  it  before  they  get  through.  I  do  not  intend  to 
give  them  any  chance  to  cheat  Lincoln  at  all  this  time.  I  intend  to  relieve 
him  of  all  anxiety  upon  that  subject,  and  spare  them  the  mortification  of  more 
exposures  of  contracts  violated,  and  the  pledged  honor  of  rogues  forfeited. 

But  I  wish  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  chief  points  at  issue  between 
Mr,  Lincoln  and  myself  in  this  discussion.  Mr.  Lincoln,  knowing  that  he  was 
to  be  candidate  of  his  party,  on  account  of  the  arrangement  of  which  I  have 
already  spoken,  knowing  that  he  was  to  receive  the  nomination  of  the  Con- 
vention for  the  United  States  Senate,  had  his  speech,  accepting  that  nomina- 
tion, all  written  and  committed  to  memory,  ready  to  be  delivered  the  moment 
the  nomination  was  announced.  Accordingly,  when  it  was  made,  he  was 
in  readiness,  and  delivered  his  speech,  a  portion  of  which  I  will  read  in  order 
that  I  may  state  his  political  principles  fairly,  by  repeating  them  in  his  own 
language : — 

"  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  instituted  for  the  avowed 
object,  and  with  the  confident  promise,  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation  ;  under 
the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
auaftnented.  I  believe  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and 
passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  government 
cannot  endm-e  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to 
be  dissolved,  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fiiU ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of 
slavery  will  arrest  the  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in 
the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push 
it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  North  as  well  as 
South." 

There  you  have  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  and  main  proposition,  upon  which  he 
bases  his  claims,  stated  in  his  own  language.  He  tells  you  that  this  Eepublic 
cannot  endure  permanently  divided  into  Slave  and  Free  States,  as  our  fathers 
made  it.  He  says  that  they  must  all  become  free  or  all  become  slave,  that 
they  must  all  be  one  thing  or  all  be  the  other,  or  this  government  cannot  last. 
Why  can  it  not  last,  if  we  will  execute  the  government  in  the  same  spirit  and 
upon  the  same  principles  upon  which  it  is  founded  ?  Lincoln,  by  his  proposition, 
says  to  the  South  :  "  If  you  desire  to  maintain  your  institutions  as  they  are  now, 
you  must  not  be  satisfied  with  minding  your  own  business,  but  you  must  invade 
Illinois  and  all  the  other  Northern  States,  establish  slavery  in  them,  and  make  it 
universal ; "  and  in  the  same  language  he  says  to  the  North  :  "  Yon  must  not  be 
content  with  regulating  your  own  affairs  and  minding  your  own  business,  but 
if  you  desire  to  maintain  your  freedom,  you  must  invade  the  Southern  States, 
abolish  slavery  there  and  everywhere,  in  order  to  have  the  States  all  one 
thing  or  all  the  other."  I  say  that  this  is  the  inevitable  aud  irresistible  result 
of  Mr,  Lincoln's  argument,  inviting  a  warfare  between  the  North  and  the 
South,  to  be  carried  on  with  ruthless  vengeance  until  the  one  section  or  the 
other  shall  be  driven  to  the  wall,  and  become  the  victim  of  the  rapacity  of 
the  other.  What  good  would  follow  such  a  system  of  warfare  ?  Suppose  the 
North  should  succeed  in  conquering  the  South,  how  much  would  she  be  the 
gainer  ?  or  suppose  the  South  should  conquer  the  North,  could  the  Union  be 
preserved  in  that  way  ?  Is  this  sectional  warfare  to  be  waged  between  the 
Northern  States  and  Southern  States  until  they  all  shall  become  uniform  in 


140  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABKAHAM  LINCOLN 

tlieir  local  and  domestic  institutions,  merely  because  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  and  pretends  that  this  scriptural 
quotation,  this  language  of  our  Lord  and  Master,  is  applicable  to  the  American 
Union  and  the  American  Constitution  ?  Washington  and  his  compeers,  in 
the  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution,  made  this  government  divided 
into  Free  and  Slave  States.  It  was  composed  then  of  thirteen  sovereign  and 
independent  States,  each  having  sovereign  authority  over  its  local  and  domestic 
institutions,  and  all  bound  together  by  the  Federal  Constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln 
likens  that  bond  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  joining  Free  and  Slave  States 
together,  to  a  house  divided  against  itself,  and  says  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law 
of  God,  and  cannot  stand.  When  did  he  learn,  and  by  what  authority  does  he 
proclaim,  that  this  government  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God  and  cannot 
stand  ?  It  has  stood  thus  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States  from  its  oruan- 
ization  up  to  this  day.  During  that  period  we  have  increased  from  four  mil- 
lions to  thirty  millions  of  people ;  we  have  extended  our  territory  from  the 
Mississippi  to  the  Pacific  Ocean ;  we  have  acquired  the  Floridas  and  Texas, 
and  other  territory  sufficient  to  double  our  geographical  extent;  we  have 
increased  in  population,  in  wealth,  and  in  power  beyond  any  example  on 
earth  ;  we  have  risen  from  a  weak  and  feeble  power  to  become  the  terror  and 
admiration  of  the  civilized  world ;  and  all  this  has  been  done  under  a  Consti- 
tution which  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  substance,  says  is  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God, 
and  under  a  Union  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  which  Mr.  Lincoln 
thinks,  because  of  such  division,  cannot  stand.  Surely  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  wiser 
man  than  those  who  framed  the  government.  Washington  did  not  believe, 
nor  did  his  compatriots,  that  the  local  laws  and  domestic  institutions  that  were 
well  adapted  to  the  Green  Mountains  of  Vermont  were  suited  to  the  rice 
plantations  of  South  Carolina ;  they  did  not  believe  at  that  day  that  in  a 
Eepublic  so  broad  and  expanded  as  this,  containing  such  a  variety  of  climate, 
soil,  and  interest,  that  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  domestic  institutions 
was  either  desirable  or  possible.  They  believed  then,  as  our  experience  has 
proved  to  us  now,  that  each  locality,  having  different  interests,  a  different  cli- 
mate, and  different  surroundings,  required  different  local  laws,  local  policy,  and 
local  institutions,  adapted  to  the  wants  of  that  locality.  Thus  our  government 
was  formed  on  the  principle  of  diversity  in  the  local  institutions  and  laws,  and 
not  on  that  of  uniformity. 

As  my  time  flies,  I  can  only  glance  at  these  points,  and  not  present  them 
as  fully  as  I  would  wish,  because  I  desire  to  bring  all  the  points  in  controversy 
between  the  two  parties  before  you,  in  order  to  have  Mr.  Lincoln's  reply. 
He  makes  war  on  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  known  as 
the  Dred  Scott  case.  I  wish  to  say  to  you,  fellow-citizens,  that  I  have  no 
war  to  make  on  that  decision,  or  any  other  ever  rendered  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  I  am  content  to  take  that  decision  as  it  stands  delivered  by  the  high- 
est judicial  tribunal  on  earth, —  a  tribunal  established  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  for  that  purpose  ;  and  hence  that  decision  becomes  the  law  of  the 
land,  binding  on  you,  on  me,  and  on  every  other  good  citizen,  whether  we  like 
it  or  not.  Hence  I  do  not  choose  to  go  into  an  argument  to  prove,  before  this 
audience,  whether  or  not  Chief  Justice  Taney  understood  the  law  better  than 
Abraham  Lincoln. 

Mr.  Lincoln  objects  to  that  decision,  first  and  mainly  because  it  deprives 
the  negro  of  the  rights  of  citizenship.  I  am  as  much  opposed  to  his  reason  for 
that  objection  as  I  am  to  the  objection  itself.  I  hold  that  a  negro  is  not  and 
never  ought  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.     I  hold  that  this  government 


AND   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS.  141 

was  made  on  the  white  basis,  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and 
their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be  administered  by  white  men  and  none 
others.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Almi,L,dity  made  the  negro  capable  of  self- 
government.  I  am  aware  that  all  the  Abolition  lecturers  that  you  find  travel- 
ling about  througli  tlie  country  are  in  the  habit  of  reading  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  to  prove  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  very  much  in  the  habit  of  following  in 
the  track  of  Lovejoy  in  this  particular,  by  reading  that  part  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  to  prove  that  the  negro  was  endowed  by  the  Almighty  with 
the  inalienable  right  of  equality  with  white  men.  Now,  I  say  to  you,  my 
fellow-citizens,  that  in  my  opinion  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  had  no  refer- 
ence to  tlie  negro  whatever  when  they  declared  all  men  to  be  created  equal. 
They  desired  to  express  by  that  phrase  white  men,  men  of  European  birth  and 
European  descent,  and  had  no  reference  either  to  the  negro,  the  savage  Indians, 
the  Fejee,  the  Malay,  or  any  other  inferior  and  degraded  race,  when  they 
spoke  of  the  equality  of  men.  One  great  evidence  that  such  was  their  under- 
standing is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  at  that  time  every  one  of  the  thirteen 
colonies  was  a  slaveholding  colony,  every  signer  of  the  Declaration  represented 
a  slaveholding  constituency,  and  we  know  that  no  one  of  them  emaucipated 
his  slaves,  much  less  offered  citizeusliip  to  them,  when  they  signed  the  Declara- 
tion ;  and  yet,  if  they  intended  to  declare  that  the  negro  was  the  equal  of  the 
white  man,  and  entitled  by  divine  right  to  an  equality  with  him,  they  were 
bound,  as  honest  men,  that  day  and  hour  to  have  put  their  negroes  on  an  equal- 
ity with  themselves.  Instead  of  doing  so,  with  uplifted  eyes  to  Heaven  they 
implored  the  divine  blessing  upon  them,  during  tlie  seven  years'  bloody  war 
they  had  to  fight  to  maintain  that  Declaration,  never  dreaming  that  they  were 
violating  divine  law  by  still  holding  the  negroes  in  bondage  and  depriving  them 
of  equality. 

My  friends,  I  am  in  favor  of  preserving  this  government  as  our  fathers 
made  it.  It  does  not  follow  by  any  means  that  because  a  negro  is  not  your 
equal  or  mine,  that  hence  he  must  necessarily  be  a  slave.  On  the  contrary, 
it  does  follow  that  we  ought  to  extend  to  the  negro  every  right,  every 
privilege,  every  immunity,  which  he  is  capable  of  enjoying,  consistent  with 
the  good  of  society.  When  you  ask  me  what  these  rights  are,  what  their 
nature  and  extent  is,  I  tell  you  that  that  is  a  question  which  each  State  of 
this  Union  must  decide  for  itself  Illinois  has  already  decided  the  question. 
We  have  decided  that  the  negro  must  not  be  a  slave  within  our  limits,  but  we 
have  also  decided  that  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  citizen  within  our  limits  ;  that 
he  shall  not  vote,  hold  office,  or  exercise  any  political  rights.  I  maintain  that 
Illinois,  as  a  sovereign  State,  has  a  right  thus  to  fix  her  policy  with  reference 
to  the  relation  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro  ;  but  while  we  had  that 
right  to  decide  the  question  for  ourselves,  we  must  recognize  the  same  right 
in  Kentucky  and  in  every  other  State  to  make  the  same  decision,  or  a  differ- 
ent one.  Having  decided  our  own  policy  with  reference  to  the  black  race,  we 
must  leave  Kentucky  and  Missouri  and  every  other  State  perfectly  free  to 
make  just  such  a  decision  as  they  see  proper  on  that  question. 

Kentucky  has  decided  that  question  for  herself  She  has  said  that  within 
her  limits  a  negro  shall  not  exercise  any  political  rights,  and  she  has  also  said 
that  a  portion  of  the  negroes  under  the  laws  of  that  State  shall  be  slaves. 
She  had  as  much  right  to  adopt  that  as  her  policy  as  we  had  to  adopt  the  con- 
trary for  our  policy.     New  York  has  decided  that  in  that  State  a  negro  may 


142  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

vote  if  he  has  $250  worth  of  property,  and  if  lie  owns  that  much  he  may  vote 
upon  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  I,  for  one,  am  utterly  opposed  to  negro 
suffrage  anywhere  and  under  any  circumstances  ;  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  Supreme 
Court  have  decided  in  the  celebrated  Dred  Scott  case  that  a  State  has  a  right 
to  confer  the  privilege  of  voting  upon  free  negroes,  I  am  not  going  to  make 
war  upon  New  York  because  she  has  adopted  a  pohcy  repugnant  to  my  feel- 
ings. But  New  York  must  mind  her  own  business,  and  keep  her  negro  suffrage 
to  herself,  and  not  attempt  to  force  it  upon  us. 

In  the  State  of  Maine  they  have  decided  that  a  negro  may  vote  and  hold 
office  on  an  equality  with  a  white  man.  I  had  occasion  to  say  to  the  sen- 
ators from  Maine,  in  a  discussion  last  session,  that  if  they  thought  that  the 
white  people  within  the  limits  of  their  State  were  no  better  than  negroes,  I 
would  not  quarrel  with  them  for  it,  but  they  must  not  say  that  my  white 
constituents  of  Illinois  were  no  better  than  negroes,  or  we  would  be  sure 
to  quarrel 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole  question,  and  declares  that  each 
State  has  the  right  to  settle  this  question  of  suffrage  for  itself,  and  all  ques- 
tions as  to  the  relations  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro.  Judge  Taney 
expressly  lays  down  the  doctrine.  I  receive  it  as  law,  and  I  say  that  while 
those  States  are  adopting  regulations  on  that  subject  disgusting  and  abhorrent, 
according  to  my  views,  I  will  not  make  war  on  them  if  they  will  mind  their 
own  business  and  let  us  alone. 

I  now  come  back  to  the  question.  Why  cannot  this  Union  exist  forever, 
divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it  ?  It  can  thus  exist 
if  each  State  will  carry  out  the  principles  upon  which  our  institutions  were 
founded ;  to  wit,  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleases,  without  meddling 
with  its  neighbors.  Just  act  upon  that  great  principle,  and  this  Union  will 
not  only  live  forever,  but  it  will  extend  and  expand  until  it  covers  the  whole 
continent,  and  makes  this  confederacy  one  grand,  ocean-bound  Eepublic.  We 
must  bear  in  mind  that  we  are  yet  a  young  nation,  growing  with  a  rapidity 
unequalled  in  the  history  of  the  world,  that  our  national  increase  is  great,  and 
that  the  emigration  from  the  Old  World  is  increasing,  requiring  us  to. expand 
and  acquire  new  territory  from  time  to  time,  in  order  to  give  our  people  land 
to  live  upon.  If  we  live  upon  the  principle  of  State  rights  and  State  sov- 
ereignty, each  State  regulating  its  own  affairs  and  minding  its  own  business, 
we  can  go  on  and  extend  indefinitely,  just  as  fast  and  as  far  as  we  need  the 
territory.  The  time  may  come,  indeed  has  now  come,  when  our  interests 
would  be  advanced  by  the  acquisition  of  the  Island  of  Cuba.  When  we  get 
Cuba  we  must  take  it  as  we  find  it,  leaving  the  people  to  decide  the  question 
of  slavery  for  themselves,  without  interference  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment or  of  any  State  of  this  Union.  So,  when  it  becomes  necessary  to 
acquire  any  portion  of  Mexico  or  Canada,  or  of  this  continent  or  the  adjoining 
islands,  we  must  take  them  as  we  find  them,  leaving  the  people  free  to  do  as 
they  please,  —  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  they  choose.  I  never  have  inquired 
and  never  will  inquire  whether  a  new  State,  applying  for  admission,  has  slavery 
or  not  for  one  of  her  institutions.  If  the  Constitution  that  is  presented  be  the 
act  and  deed  of  the  people,  and  embodies  their  will,  and  they  have  the  requi- 
site population,  I  will  admit  them,  with  slavery  or  without  it,  just  as  that 
people  shall  determine.  My  objection  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  did  not 
consist  in  the  fact  that  it  made  Kansas  a  Slave  State.  I  would  have  been  as 
much  opposed  to  its  admission  under  such  a  Constitution  as  a  Free  State  as  I 
was  opposed  to  its  admission  under  it  as  a  Slave  State.     I  hold  that  that  was 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  143 

a  question  which  that  people  had  a  right  to  decide  for  themselves,  and  that  no 
power  on  earth  ought  to  have  interfered  with  that  decision.  In  my  opinion, 
the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
and  did  not  embody  their  will ;  and  the  recent  election  in  that  Territory,  at 
which  it  was  voted  down  by  nearly  ten  to  one,  shows  conclusively  that  I  was 
right  in  saying,  when  the  Constitution  was  presented,  that  it  was  not  the  act 
and  deed  of  the  people,  and  did  not  embody  their  will. 

If  we  wish  to  preserve  our  institutions  in  their  purity,  and  transmit  them 
unimpaired  to  our  latest  posterity,  we  must  preserve  with  religious  good  faith 
that  great  principle  of  self-government  which  guarantees  to  each  and  every 
State,  old  and  new,  the  right  to  make  just  such  constitutions  as  they  desire, 
and  come  into  the  Union  with  their  own  constitution,  and  not  one  palmed 
upon  them.  Whenever  you  sanction  the  doctrine  that  Congress  may  crowd 
a  constitution  down  the  throats  of  an  unwilling  people,  against  their  consent, 
you  will  subvert  the  great  fundamental  principle  upon  which  all  our  free  insti- 
tutions rest.  In  the  future  1  have  no  fear  that  the  attempt  will  ever  be  made. 
President  Buchanan  declared  in  his  annual  message  that  hereafter  the  rule 
adopted  in  the  Minnesota  case,  requiring  a  constitution  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  should  be  followed  in  all  future  cases  ;  and  if  he  stands  by  that 
recommendation,  there  will  be  no  division  in  the  Democratic  party  on  that 
principle  in  the  future.  Hence,  the  great  mission  of  the  Democracy  is  to 
unite  the  fraternal  feeling  of  the  whole  country,  restore  peace  and  quiet,  by 
teaching  each  State  to  mind  its  own  business,  and  regulate  its  own  domestic 
affairs,  and  all  to  unite  in  carrying  out  tlie  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it, 
and  thus  to  preserve  the  Union  and  render  it  perpetual  in  all  time  to  come. 
Why  should  we  not  act  as  our  fathers  who  made  the  government  ?  There 
was  no  sectional  strife  in  Washington's  army.  They  were  all  brethren  of  a 
common  confederacy;  they  fought  under  a  common  flag  that  they  might 
bestow  upon  their  posterity  a  common  destiny  ;  and  to  this  end  they  poured 
out  their  blood  in  common  streams,  and  shared,  in  some  instances,  a  common 
grave. 


ME.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  There  is  very  much  in  the  principles  that  Judge 
Douglas  has  here  enunciated  that  I  most  cordially  approve,  and  over  which  I 
shall  have  no  controversy  with  him.  In  so  far  as  he  has  insisted  that  all  the 
States  have  the  right  to  do  exactly  as  they  please  about  all  their  domestic  rela- 
tions, including  that  of  slavery,  I  agree  entirely  with  him.  He  places  me 
wrong  in  spite  of  all  I  can  tell  him,  though  I  repeat  it  again  and  again,  insist- 
ing that  I  have  no  difference  with  him  upon  this  subject.  I  have  made  a  great 
many  speeches,  some  of  which  have  been  printed,  and  it  will  be  utterly  impos- 
sible for  him  to  find  anything  that  I  have  ever  put  in  print  contrary  to  what  I 
now  say  upon  this  subject.  I  hold  myself  under  constitutional  obligations  to 
allow  the  people  in  all  the  States,  without  interference,  direct  or  indirect,  to 
do  exactly  as  they  please;  and  I  deny.tliat  I  have  any  inclination  to  interfere 
with  them,  even  if  there  were  no  such  constitutional  obligation.  I  can  only  say 
again  that  I  am  placed  improperly — altogether  improperly,  in  spite  of  all  I 
can  say  —  when  it  is  insisted  that  I  entertain  any  other  view  or  purposes  in 
regard  to  that  matter. 

While  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  will  make  some  answers  briefly  to  certain 
propositions  that  Judge  Douglas  has  put.     He  says,  "  Why  can't  this  Union 


144  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free  ? "  I  have  said  that  I  supposed  it 
could  not,  and  I  will  try,  before  this  new  audience,  to  give  briefly  some  of  the 
reasons  for  entertaining  that  opinion.  Another  form  of  his  question  is,  "  Why 
can't  we  let  it  stand  as  our  fathers  placed  it  ? "  That  is  the  exact  difficulty 
between  us.  I  say  that  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  have  changed  it  from 
the  position  in  which  our  fathers  originally  placed  it.  I  say,  in  the  way  our 
fathers  originally  left  the  slavery  question,  the  institution  was  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction,  and  the  public  mind  rested  in  the  belief  that  it  vxis  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  say  when  this  government  was  first  estab- 
lished, it  was  the  policy  of  its  founders  to  prohibit  the  spread  of  slavery  into 
the  new  Territories  of  the  United  States,  where  it  had  not  existed.  But  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  friends  have  broken  up  that  policy,  and  placed  it  upon  a  new 
basis,  by  which  it  is  to  become  national  and  perpetual.  All  I  have  asked  or 
desired  anywhere  is  that  it  should  be  placed  back  again  upon  the  basis  that  the 
fathers  of  our  government  originally  placed  it  upon.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it 
would  become  extinct,  for  all  time  to  come,  if  we  but  readopted  the  policy  of 
the  fathers,  by  restricting  it  to  the  limits  it  has  already  covered,  —  restricting 
it  from  the  new  Territories. 

I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  great  length  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  at  this 
time,  but  allow  me  to  repeat  one  thing  that  I  have  stated  before.  Brooks  — 
the  man  who  assaulted  Senator  Sumner  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  who 
was  complimented  with  dinners,  and  silver  pitchers,  and  gold-headed  canes, 
and  a  good  many  other  things  for  that  feat  —  in  one  of  his  speeches  declared 
that  when  this  government  was  originally  established,  nobody  expected  that 
the  institution  of  slavery  would  last  until  this  day.  That  was  but  the  opinion 
of  one  man,  but  it  was  such  an  opinion  as  w^e  can  never  get  from  Judge  Doug- 
las or  anybody  in  favor  of  slavery  in  the  ISTorth  at  all.  You  can  sometimes  get 
it  from  a  Southern  man.  He  said  at  the  same  time  that  the  framers  of  our 
government  did  not  have  the  knowledge  that  experience  has  taught  us ;  that 
experience  and  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  have  taught  us  that  the  per- 
petuation of  slavery  is  a  necessity.  He  insisted,  therefore,  upon  its  being 
changed  from  the  basis  upon  which  the  fathers  of  the  government  left  it  to 
the  basis  of  its  perpetuation  and  nationalization. 

I  insist  that  this  is  the  difference  between  Judge  Douglas  and  mj^self, — 
that  Judge  Douglas  is  helping  that  change  along.  I  insist  upon  this  govern- 
ment being  placed  where  our  fathers  originally  placed  it. 

I  remember  Judge  Douglas  once  said  that  he  saw  the  evidences  on  the 
statute  books  of  Congress  of  a  policy  in  the  origin  of  government  to  divide 
slavery  and  freedom  by  a  geographical  line ;  that  he  saw  an  indisposition  to 
maintain  that  policy,  and  therefore  he  set  about  stud3dng  up  a  way  to  settle 
the  institution  on  the  right  basis,  —  the  basis  which  he  thought  it  ought  to 
have  been  placed  upon  at  first ;  and  in  that  speech  he  confesses  that  he  seeks 
to  place  it,  not  upon  the  basis  that  the  fathers  placed  it  upon,  but  upon  one 
gotten  \\\)  on  "  original  principles."  AVhen  he  asks  me  why  we  cannot  get 
along  with  it  in  the  attitude  where  our  fathers  placed  it,  he  had  better  clear  up 
the  evidences  that  he  has  himself  changed  it  from  that  basis,  that  he  has  him- 
self been  chiefly  instrumental  in  changing  the  policy  of  the  fathers.  Any  one 
who  will  read  his  speech  of  the  22d  of  last  jMarch  will  see  that  he  there  makes 
an  open  confession,  showing  that  Jie  set  about  fixing  the  institution  upon  an 
altogether  different  set  of  principles.  I  think  I  have  fully  answered  him  when 
he  asks  me  why  we  cannot  let  it  alone  upon  the  basis  wliere  our  fathers  left  it, 
by  showing  that  he  has  himself  changed  the  whole  policy  of  the  government 
in  that  regard. 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  145 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  in  regard  to  this  matter  about  a  contract  that  was 
made  between  Judge  Trumbull  and  myself,  and  all  that  long  portion  of  Judge 
Douglas's  speech  on  this  subject,  —  I  wish  simply  to  say  what  I  have  said  to 
him  before,  that  he  cannot  know  whether  it  is  true  or  not,  and  I  do  know  that 
there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it.  And  I  have  told  him  so  before.  I  don't 
want  any  harsh  language  indulged  in,  but  I  do  not  know  how  to  deal  with  this 
persistent  insisting  on  a  story  that  I  know  to  be  utterly  without  truth.  It 
used  to  be  a  fashion  amongst  men  that  when  a  charge  was  made,  some  sort  of 
proof  was  brought  forward  to  establish  it,  and  if  no  proof  was  found  to  exist,  the 
charge  was  dropped.  I  don't  know  how  to  meet  this  kind  of  an  argument.  I 
don't  want  to  have  a  fight  with  Judge  Douglas,  and  I  have  no  way  of  making  an 
argument  up  into  the  consistency  of  a  corn-cob  and  stopping  his  mouth  with 
it.  All  I  can  do  is,  good-humoredly  to  say  that,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  all  that  story  about  a  bargain  between  Judge  Trumbull  and  myself,  there  is 
not  a  tvord  of  truth  in  it.  I  can  only  ask  him  to  show  some  sort  of  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  his  story.  He  brings  forward  iiere  and  reads  from  what  he  con- 
tends is  a  speech  by  James  H.  Matheny,  charging  such  a  bargain  between 
Trumbull  and  myself  My  own  opinion  is  that  Matheny  did  do  some  such 
immoral  thing  as  to  tell  a  story  that  he  knew  nothing  about.  I  believe  he  did. 
I  contradicted  it  instantly,  and  it  has  been  contradicted  by  Judge  Trumbull, 
while  nobody  has  produced  any  proof,  because  there  is  none.  Now,  whether 
the  speech  which  the  Judge  brings  forward  here  is  really  the  one  Matheny 
made,  I  do  not  know,  and  I  hope  the  Judge  will  pardon  me  for  doubting  the 
genuineness  of  this  document,  since  his  production  of  those  Springfield  resolu- 
tions at  Ottawa.  I  do  not  wish  to  dwell  at  any  great  length  upon  this  matter. 
I  can  say  nothing  when  a  long  story  like  this  is  told,  except  it  is  not  true,  and 
demand  tliat  he  who  insists  upon  it  shall  produce  some  proof.  That  is  all  any 
man  can  do,  and  I  leave  it  in  that  way,  for  I  know  of  no  other  way  of  dealing 
with  it. 

The  Judge  has  gone  over  a  long  account  of  the  old  Whig  and  Democratic 
parties,  and  it  connects  itself  with  this  charge  against  Trumbull  and  myself. 
He  says  that  they  agreed  upon  a  compromise  in  regard  to  the  slavery  question 
in  1850 ;  that  in  a  National  Democratic  Convention  resolutions  were  passed  to 
abide  by  that  compromise  as  a  finality  upon  the  slavery  question.  He  also 
says  that  the  Whig  party  in  National  Convention  agreed  to  abide  by  and  regard 
as  a  finality  the  Compromise  of  1850.  I  understand  the  Judge  to  be  altogether 
right  about  that ;  I  understand  that  part  of  the  history  of  the  country  as  stated 
by  him  to  be  correct.  I  recollect  that  I,  as  a  member  of  that  jury,  acquiesced 
in  that  compromise.  I  recollect  in  the  Presidential  election  which  followed, 
when  we  had  General  Scott  up  for  the  Presidency,  Judge  Douglas  was  around 
berating  us  Whigs  as  Abolitionists,  precisely  as  he  does  to-day,  —  not  a  bit  of 
difference.  I  have  often  heard  him.  We  could  do  nothing  when  the  old  Whig 
party  was  alive  that  was  not  Abolitionism,  but  it  has  got  an  extremely  good 
name  since  it  has  passed  away. 

When  that  Compromise  was  made  it  did  not  repeal  tlie  old  Missouri  Com- 
promise. It  left  a  region  of  United  States  territory  lialf  as  large  as  the  present 
territory  of  the  United  States,  north  of  the  line  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  in 
which  slavery  was  prohibited  by  Act  of  Congress.  This  Compromise  did  not 
repeal  that  one.  It  did  not  affect  or  propose  to  repeal  it.  But  at  last  it 
became  Judge  Douglas's  duty,  as  he  thought  (and  I  find  no  fault  with  him), 
as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the  orfjani- 
zation  of  a  Territorial  Government,  —  first  of  one,  then  of  two  Territories  north 

19 


146  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

of  tliat  line.  When  he  did  so,  it  ended  in  his  inserting  a  provision  substan- 
tially repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise.  That  was  because  the  Compromise 
of  1850  had  7iot  repealed  it.  And  now  I  ask  why  he  could  not  have  let  that 
Compromise  alone  ?  We  were  quiet  from  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question. 
We  were  making  no  fuss  about  it.  All  had  acquiesced  in  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850.  We  never  had  been  seriously  disturbed  by  any  Abolition 
agitation  before  that  period.  When  he  came  to  form  governments  for  the 
Territories  north  of  the  line  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  why  could  he  not  have 
let  that  matter  stand  as  it  was  standing  ?  Was  it  necessarv  to  the  oraaniza- 
tion  of  a  Territory  ?  Not  at  all.  Iowa  lay  north  of  the  line,  and  had  been 
organized  as  a  Territory  and  come  into  the  Union  as  a  State  without  disturb- 
ing that  Compromise.  There  was  no  sort  of  necessity  for  destroying  it  to 
organize  these  Territories.  But,  gentlemen,  it  would  take  up  all  my  time  to 
meet  all  the  little  quibbling  arguments  of  Judge  Douglas  to  show  that  the 
Missouri  Compromise  was  repealed  by  the  Compromise  of  1850.  My  own 
opinion  is,  that  a  careful  investigation  of  all  the  arguments  to  sustain  the 
position  that  that  Compromise  was  virtually  repealed  by  the  Compromise  of 
1850  would  show  that  they  are  the  merest  fallacies.  I  have  the  Eeport  that 
Judge  Douglas  first  brought  into  Congress  at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of 
the  Nebraska  bill,  which  in  its  original  form  did  not  repeal  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, and  he  there  expressly  stated  that  he  had  forborne  to  do  so  because  it 
had  not  bec7i  done  hy  the  Comi^romise  of  1850.  I  close  this  part  of  the  discus- 
sion on  my  part  by  asking  him  the  question  again,  "  Why,  when  we  had  peace 
under  the  Missouri  Compromise,  could  you  not  have  let  it  alone  ? " 

In  complaining  of  what  I  said  in  my  speech  at  Springfield,  in  which  he 
says  I  accepted  my  nomination  for  the  senatorship  (where,  by  the  way,  he  is 
at  fault,  for  if  he  will  examine  it,  he  will  find  no  acceptance  in  it),  he  again 
quotes  that  portion  in  which  I  said  that  "  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand."     Let  me  say  a  word  in  regard  to  that  matter. 

He  tries  to  persuade  us  that  there  must  be  a  variety  in  the  different  insti- 
tutions of  the  States  of  the  Union ;  that  that  variety  necessarily  proceeds  from 
the  variety  of  soil,  climate,  of  the  face  of  the  country,  and  the  difference  in 
the  natural  features  of  the  States.  I  agree  to  all  that.  Have  these  very 
matters  ever  produced  any  difficulty  amongst  us  ?  Not  at  all.  Have  we  ever 
had  any  quarrel  over  the  fact  that  they  have  laws  in  Louisiana  designed  to 
regulate  the  commerce  that  springs  from  the  production  of  sugar  ?  Or  because 
we  have  a  different  class  relative  to  the  production  of  flour  in  this  State  ? 
Have  they  produced  any  differences  ?  Not  at  all.  They  are  the  very  cements 
of  this  Union.  They  don't  make  the  house  a  house  divided  against  itself. 
They  are  the  props  that  hold  up  the  house  and  sustain  the  Union. 

But  has  it  been  so  with  this  element  of  slavery  ?  Have  we  not  always  had 
quarrels  and  difficulties  over  it  ?  And  when  will  we  cease  to  have  quarrels 
over  it  ?  Like  causes  produce  like  effects.  It  is  worth  while  to  observe  that 
we  have  generally  had  comparative  peace  upon  the  slavery  question,  and  that 
there  has  been  no  cause  for  alarm  until  it  was  excited  by  the  effort  to  spread 
it  into  new  territory.  Whenever  -it  has  been  limited  to  its  present  bounds, 
and  there  has  been  no  effort  to  spread  it,  there  has  been  peace.  All  the 
trouble  and  convulsion  has  proceeded  from  efforts  to  spread  it  over  more  terri- 
tory. It  was  thus  at  the  date  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  It  was  so  again 
with  the  annexation  of  Texas  ;  so  with  the  territory  acquired  by  the  Mexican 
war ;  and  it  is  so  now.  Whenever  there  has  been  an  effort  to  spread  it,  there 
has  been  agitation  and  resistance.     Now,  I  appeal  to  this  audience  (very  few 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  147 

of  whom  are  my  political  friends),  as  national  men,  whether  we  have  reason 
to  expect  that  the  agitation  in  regard  to  this  subject  will  cease  while  the 
causes  that  tend  to  reproduce  agitation  are  actively  at  work  ?  "Will  not  the 
same  cause  that  produced  agitation  in  1820,  when  the  Missouri  Compromise 
was  formed,  —  that  which  produced  the  agitation  upon  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  and  at  other  times,  —  work  out  the  same  results  always?  Do  you 
think  tliat  the  nature  of  man  will  be  changed,  that  the  same  causes  that  pro- 
duced agitation  at  one  time  will  not  have  the  same  effect  at  another  ? 

This  lias  been  the  result  so  far  as  my  observation  of  the  slavery  question 
and  my  reading  in  history  extends.  What  right  have  we  then  to  hope  that 
the  trouble  will  cease,  —  that  the  agitation  will  come  to  an  end,  —  until  it 
shall  either  be  placed  back  where  it  originally  stood,  and  where  the  fathers 
originally  placed  it,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  until  it  shall  entirely  master  all 
opposition  ?  This  is  the  view  I  entertain,  and  this  is  the  reason  why  I  enter- 
tained it,  as  Judge  Douglas  has  read  from  my  Springfield  speech. 

Now,  my  friends,  tliere  is  one  other  thing  that  I  feel  myself  under  some  sort 
of  obligation  to  mention.  Judge  Douglas  has  here  to-day  —  in  a  very  ram- 
bling way,  I  was  about  saying  —  spoken  of  the  platforms  for  which  he  seeks 
to  hold  me  responsible.  He  says,  "Why  can't  you  come  out  and  make  an 
open  avowal  of  principles  in  all  places  alike  ?  "  and  he  reads  from  an  advertise- 
ment that  he  says  was  used  to  notify  the  people  of  a  speech  to  be  made  by 
Judge  Trumbull  at  Waterloo.  In  commenting  on  it  he  desires  to  know 
whether  we  cannot  speak  frankly  and  manfully,  as  he  and  his  friends  do. 
How,  I  ask,  do  his  friends  speak  out  their  own  sentiments  ?  A  Convention 
of  his  party  in  this  State  met  on  the  21st  of  April  at  Springfield,  and  passed 
a  set  of  resolutions  which  they  proclaim  to  the  country  as  their  platform. 
This  does  constitute  their  platform,  and  it  is  because  Judge  Douglas  claims  it 
is  his  platform  —  that  these  are  his  principles  and  purposes  —  that  he  has  a 
right  to  declare  he  speaks  his  sentiments  "  frankly  and  manfully "  On  the 
9th  of  June,  Colonel  John  Dougherty,  Governor  Eeynolds,  and  others,  calling 
themselves  National  Democrats,  met  in  Springfield  and  adopted  a  set  of  reso- 
lutions which  are  as  easily  understood,  as  plain  and  as  definite  in  stating  to 
the  country  and  to  the  world  what  they  believed  in  and  would  stand  upon,  as 
Judge  Douglas's  platform.  Now,  what  is  the  reason,  that  Judge  Douglas  is 
not  willing  that  Colonel  Dougherty  and  Governor  Keynolds  should  stand  upon 
their  own  written  and  printed  platform  as  well  as  he  upon  his  ?  Why  must 
he  look  farther  than  their  platform  when  he  claims  himself  to  stand  by  his 
platform  ? 

Again,  in  reference  to  our  platform  :  On  the  16th  of  June  the  Eepublicans 
had  their  Convention  and  published  their  platform,  which  is  as  clear  and  dis- 
tinct as  Judge  Douglas's.  In  it  they  spoke  their  principles  as  plainly  and  as 
definitely  to  the  world.  What  is  the  reason  that  Judge  Douglas  is  not  willing 
I  should  stand  upon  that  platform  ?  Why  must  he  go  around  hunting  for 
some  one  who  is  supporting  me,  or  has  supported  me  at  some  time  in  his  life, 
and  who  has  said  something  at  some  time  contrary  to  tliat  platform  ?  Does 
the  Judixe  regard  that  rule  as  a  good  one  ?  If  it  turn  out  that  the  rule  is  a 
good  one  for  me,  —  that  I  am  responsible  for  any  and  every  opinion  that  any 
man  has  expressed  who  is  my  friend,  —  then  it  is  a  good  rule  for  him.  I  ask. 
Is  it  not  as  good  a  rule  for  him  as  it  is  for  me  ?  In  my  opinion,  it  is  not  a 
good  rule  for  either  of  us.     Do  you  think  differently.  Judge  ? 

Mr.  Douglas  :  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Judge  Douglas  says  he  does  not  think  differently.     I  am 


148  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

glad  of  it.  Then  can  lie  tell  me  why  he  is  looking  up  resolutions  of  five  or 
six  years  ago,  and  insisting  that  they  were  my  platform,  notwithstanding  my 
protest  that  they  are  not,  and  never  were  my  platform,  and  my  pointing  out 
the  platform  of  the  State  Convention  which  he  delights  to  say  nominated  me 
for  the  Senate  ?  I  cannot  see  what  he  means  by  parading  these  resolutions, 
if  it  is  not  to  hold  me  responsible  for  them  in  some  way.  If  he  says  to  me 
here  that  he  does  not  hold  the  rule  to  be  good,  one  way  or  the  other,  I  do  not 
comprehend  how  he  could  answer  me  more  fvdly  if  he  answered  me  at  greater 
length.  I  will  therefore  put  in  as  my  answer  to  the  resolutions  that  he  has 
hunted  up  against  me,  what  I,  as  a  lawyer,  would  call  a  good  plea  to  a  bad 
declaration.  I  understand  that  it  is  a  maxim  of  law  that  a  poor  plea  may  be 
a  good  plea  to  a  bad  declaration.  I  think  that  the  opinions  the  Judge  brings 
from  those  who  support  me,  yet  differ  from  me,  is  a  bad  declaration  against 
me  ;  but  if  I  can  bring  the  same  things  against  him,  I  am  putting  in  a  good 
plea  to  that  kind  of  declaration,  and  now  I  propose  to  try  it. 

At  Freeport,  Judge  Douglas  occupied  a  large  part  of  his  time  in  producing 
resolutions  and  documents  of  various  sorts,  as  I  understood,  to  make  me  some- 
how responsible  for  them  ;  and  I  propose  now  doing  a  little  of  the  same  sort 
of  thing  for  him.  In  1850  a  very  clever  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Thomp- 
son Campbell,  a  personal  friend  of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  a  political  friend 
of  Judge  Douglas  and  opponent  of  mine,  was  a  candidate  for  Congress  in  the 
Galena  District.  He  was  interrogated  as  to  his  views  on  this  same  slavery 
question.  I  have  here  before  me  the  interrogatories,  and  Campbell's  answers 
to  them.     I  will  read  them  :  — 

Interrogator!  es. 

1st.  Will  you,  if  elected,  vote  for  and  cordially  support  a  bill  prohibiting  slavery 
in  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  1 

2d.  Will  you  vote  for  and  support  a  bill  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  1 

3d.  Will  yon  oppose  the  admission  of  any  Slave  States  which  may  be  formed  out 
of  Texas  or  the  Territories  ] 

4th.  Will  you  vote  for  and  advocate  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  passed 
at  the  recent  session  of  Congress  1 

5th.  Will  you  advocate  and  vote  for  the  election  of  a  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  who  shall  be  willing  to  organize  the  committee  of  that  House  so  as 
to  give  the  Free  States  their  just  influence  in  the  business  of  legislation  1 

6th.  W-'hat  are  your  views,  not  only  as  to  the  constitutional  right  of  Congress  to 
prohibit  the  slave-trade  between  the  States,  but  also  as  to  the  expediency  of  exercising 
that  right  immediately  1 

Campbell's  Reply. 

To  the  first  and  second  interrogatories,  I  answer  unequivocally  in  the  affirmative. 

To  the  third  interrogatory  I  reply,  that  I  am  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any 
more  Slave  States  into  the  Union,  that  may  be  formed  out  of  Texas  or  any  other 
Territory. 

To  the  fourth  and  fifth  interrogatories  I  unhesitatingly  answer  in  the  affirmative. 

To  the  sixth  interrogatory  I  reply,  that  so  long  as  the  Slave  States  continue  to 
treat  slaves  as  articles  of  commerce,  the  Constitution  confers  power  on  Congress  to 
pass  laws  regulating  that  peculiar  COMMERCE,  and  that  the  protection  of  Human 
Rights  imperatively  demands  the  interposition  of  every  constitutional  means  to  pre- 
vent this  most  inhuman  and  iniquitous  traffic. 

T.  Campbell. 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  149 

I  want  to  say  here  that  Thompson  Campbell  was  elected  to  Congress  on 
that  platform,  as  the  Democratic  candidate  in  the  Galena  District,  against 
Martin  P.  Sweet. 

Judge  Douglas  :    Give  me  the  date  of  the  letter. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  The  time  Campbell  ran  was  in  1850.  I  have  not  the 
exact  date  here.  It  was  some  time  in  1850  that  these  interrogatories  were  put 
and  the  answer  given.  Campbell  was  elected  to  Congress,  and  served  out  his 
term.  I  think  a  second  election  came  up  before  he  served  out  his  term,  and 
he  was  not  re-elected.  Whether  defeated  or  not  nominated,  I  do  not  know. 
[Mr.  Campbell  was  nominated  for  re-election  by  the  Democratic  party,  by 
acclamation.]  At  the  end  of  his  term  his  very  good  friend  Judge  Douglas 
o'ot  him  a  hiuh  office  from  President  Pierce,  and  sent  him  off  to  California.  Is 
not  that  the  fact  ?  Just  at  the  end  of  his  term  in  Congress  it  appears  that  our 
mutual  friend  Judge  Douglas  got  our  mutual  friend  Campbell  a  good  office, 
and  sent  him  to  California  upon  it.  And  not  only  so,  but  on  the  27th  of  last 
month,  when  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  spoke  at  Freeport  in  joint  discussion, 
there  was  his  same  friend  Campbell,  come  all  the  way  from  California,  to  help 
the  Judge  beat  me ;  and  there  was  poor  Martin  P.  Sweet  standing  on  the 
platform,  trying  to  help  poor  me  to  be  elected.  That  is  true  of  one  of  Judge 
Douglas's  friends. 

So  again,  in  that  same  race  of  1850,  there  was  a  Congressional  Convention 
assembled  at  Joliet,  and  it  nominated  It.  S.  Molony  for  Congress,  and  unani- 
mously adopted  the  following  resolution  :  — 

"Resolved,  That  we  are  uncompromisingly  opposed  to  the  extension  of  slavery; 
and  while  we  would  not  make  such  opposition  a  ground  of  interference  with  the  inter- 
ests of  the  States  where  it  exists,  yet  we  moderately  but  firmly  insist  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  Congress  to  oppose  its  extension  into  Territory  now  free,  by  all  means  com- 
patible with  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution,  and  with  good  faith  to  our  sister 
States  ;  that  these  principles  were  recognized  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which 
received  the  sanction  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  who  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the  great 
oracle  and  expounder  of  our  faith." 

Subsequently  the  same  interrogatories  were  propounded  to  Dr.  Molony 
which  had  been  addressed  to  Campbell,  as  above,  with  tlie  exception  of  the 
6th,  respecting  the  interstate  slave  trade,  to  which  Dr.  Molony,  the  Demo- 
cratic nominee  for  Congress,  replied  as  follows :  — 

I  received  the  written  interrogatories  this  day,  and,  as  yon  will  see  by  the  La 
Salle  "  Democrat "  and  Ottawa  "  Free  Trader,"  I  took  at  Peru  on  the  5th,  and  at 
Ottawa  on  the  7th,  the  affirmative  side  of  interrogatories  1st  and  2d  ;  and  in  relation 
to  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  from  Free  Territory,  my  position  taken  at 
these  meetings,  as  correctly  reported  in  said  papers,  was  emphaticxdUj  and  distinctly 
opposed  to  it.  In  relation  to  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  from  Texas, 
whether  I  shall  go  against  it  or  not  will  depend  upon  the  opinion  that  I  may  here- 
after form  of  the  true  meaning  and  nature  of  the  resolutions  of  annexation.  If,  by 
said  resolutions,  the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  nation  is  pledged  to  admit  more 
Slave  States  from  Texas  when  she  (Texas)  may  apply  for  the  admission  of  such  State, 
then  I  should,  if  in  Congress,  vote  for  their  admission.  But  if  not  so  pledged  and 
bound  by  sacred  contract,  then  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  more  Slave  States  from 
Texas  would  never  receive  my  vote. 

To  your  fourth  interrogatory  I  answer  most  decidedly  in  the  affirmative,  and  for 
reasons  set  forth  in  my  reported  remarks  at  Ottawa  last  Monday. 

To  your  fifth  interrogatory  I  also  reply  in  the  affirmative  viost  cordicdly,  and  that 
I  will  use  my  utmost  exertions  to  secure  the  nomination  and  election  of  a  man  who 


150  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

will  accomplish  the  objects  of  said  interrogatories.  I  most  cordially  approve  of 
the  resolutions  adopted  at  the  union  meeting  held  at  Princeton  on  the  27th  Sep- 
tember ult.  Yours,  etc.,  R.  S.  Molony. 

All  I  have  to  say  in  regard  to  Dr.  Molony  is,  that  he  was  the  regularly 
nominated  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  his  district ;  was  elected  at 
that  time,  at  the  end  of  his  term  was  appointed  to  a  land-office  at  Danville. 
(I  never  heard  anything  of  Judge  Douglas's  instrumentality  in  this.)  He  held 
this  office  a  considerable  time,  and  when  we  were  at  Freeport  the  other  day, 
there  were  handbills  scattered  about  notifying  the  public  that  after  our  debate 
was  over,  E.  S.  Molony  would  make  a  Democratic  speech  in  favor  of  Judge 
Douglas.  That  is  all  I  know  of  my  own  personal  knowledge.  It  is  added 
here  to  this  resolution,  and  truly  I  believe,  that  — 

"  Among  those  wlio  participated  in  the  Joliet  Convention,  and  who  supported  its 
nominee,  with  his  platform  as  laid  down  in  the  resolution  of  the  Convention  and  in 
his  reply  as  above  given,  we  call  at  random  the  following  names,  all  of  which  are 
recognized  at  this  day  as  leading  Democrats  :  — 

"  Cook  County,  — E.  B.  Williams,  Charles  McDonell,  Arno  Voss,  Thomas  Hoyne, 
Isaac  Cook." 

I  reckon  we  ought  to  except  Cook. 

"  F.  C.  Sherman. 

"Will,  —Joel  A.  Matteson,  S.  W.  Bowen. 

"Kane,  —  B.  F.  Hall,  G.  W.  Ren  wick,  A.  M.  Herriugton,  Elijali  Wilcox. 

"  McHenry,  —  W.  M.  Jackson,  Enos  W.  Smith,  Neil  Donnelly. 

"La  Salle,  — John  Rise,  William  Reddick." 

William  Eeddick !  another  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends  that  stood  on 
the  stand  with  him  at  Ottawa,  at  the  time  the  Judge  says  my  knees  trembled 
so  that  I  had  to  be  carried  away.     The  names  are  all  here  :  — 

"  Du  Page,  —  Nathan  Allen. 
"  De  Kalb,  —  Z.  B.  Mayo." 

Here  is  another  set  of  resolutions  which  I  think  are  apposite  to  the  matter 
in  hand. 

On  the  28tli  of  February  of  the  same  year,  a  Democratic  District  Convention 
was  held  at  Naperville  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  Circuit  Judge.  Among 
the  delegates  were  Bowen  and  Kelly,  of  Will ;  Captain  Xaper,  H.  H.  Cody, 
Nathan  Allen,  of  Du  Page  ;  W.  M.  Jackson,  J.  M.  Strode,  P.  W.  Piatt,  and 
Enos  W.  Smith,  of  McHenry  ;  J.  Horsman  and  others,  of  Winnebago.  Colonel 
Strode  presided  over  the  Convention.  The  following  resolutions  were  unani- 
mously adopted,  —  the  first  on  motion  of  P.  W.  Piatt,  the  second  on  motion 
of  William  M.  Jackson :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  is  in  favor  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  both  in 
Principle  and  Practice,  and  that  we  know  of  no  good  reason  why  any  person  should 
oppose  the  largest  latitude  in  Free  Soil,  Free  Territory  and  Free  Speech. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Convention,  the  time  has  arrived  when 
all  men  should  he  free,  whites  as  well  as  others." 

Judge  Douglas  :  What  is  the  date  of  those  resolutions  ? 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  I  understand  it  was  in  1850,  but  I  do  not  knoio  it.     I  do 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  151 

not  state  a  thing  and  say  I  know  it,  when  I  do  not.  But  I  have  the  highest 
belief  that  this  is  so.  I  know  of  no  way  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  tliere 
is  an  error  in  it.  I  mean  to  put  a  case  no  stronger  than  the  truth  will  allow. 
But  what  I  was  going  to  comment  upon  is  an  extract  from  a  newspaj)er  in 
De  Kalb  County ;  and  it  strikes  me  as  being  rather  singular,  I  confess,  under 
the  circumstances.  There  is  a  Judge  Mayo  in  that  county,  who  is  a  candidate 
for  the  Legislature,  for  the  purpose,  if  he  secures  his  election,  of  helping  to 
re-elect  Judge  Douglas.  He  is  the  editor  of  a  newspaper  [De  Kalb  County 
"Sentinel"],  and  in  that  paper  I  find  the  extract  I  am  going  to  read.  It 
is  part  of  an  editorial  article  in  which  he  was  electioneering  as  fiercely  as  he 
could  for  Judge  Douglas  and  against  me.  It  was  a  curious  thing,  I  think,  to 
be  in  such  a  paper.  I  will  agree  to  that,  and  the  Jndge  may  make  the  most 
of  it :  — 

"Our  education  has  been  such  that  we  have  ever  been  rather  in  favor  of  the 
equality  of  the  blacks  ;  that  is,  that  they  shoidd  enjoy  all  the  ■privileges  of  the  whites 
where  they  reside.  We  are  aware  that  this  is  not  a  very  popular  doctrine.  We 
have  had  many  a  confab  with  some  who  are  now  strong  '  Iiepubbcans,'  we  taking  the 
broad  ground  of  equahty,  and  they  the  opposite  ground. 

"  We  were  brought  up  in  a  State  where  blacks  were  voters,  and  we  do  not  know 
of  any  inconvenience  resulting  from  it,  though  perhaps  it  would  not  work  as  well 
where  the  blacks  are  more  munerous.  We  have  no  doubt  of  the  right  of  the  whites 
to  guard  against  such  an  evil,  if  it  is  one.  Our  opinion  is  that  it  would  be  best  for 
all  concerned  to  have  the  colored  population  in  a  State  by  themselves  [in  this  I 
agree  with  liim]  ;  but  if  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  we  say  by  all 
means  they  shoidd  have  the  right  to  have  their  Senators  and  Reiwesentatives  in  Congress, 
and  to  vote  for  President..  With  us  '  worth  makes  the  man,  and  want  of  it  the  fel- 
low.' We  have  seen  many  a  'nigger'  that  we  thought  more  of  than  some  white 
men." 

That  is  one  of  Judge  Douglas's  friends.  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  leave 
myself  in  an  attitude  where  I  can  be  misrepresented,  so  I  will  say  I  do  not 
think  the  Judge  is  responsible  for  tliis  article  ;  but  he  is  quite  as  responsible  for 
it  as  I  would  be  if  one  of  my  friends  had  said  it.     I  think  that  is  fair  enough. 

I  have  here  also  a  set  of  resolutions  passed  by  a  Democratic  State  Conven- 
tion in  Judge  Douglas's  own  good  old  State  of  Vermont,  that  I  think  ought  to 
be  fjood  for  him  too  :  — 


o^ 


''  Resolved,  That  liberty  is  a  right  inherent  and  inalienable  in  man,  and  that  herein 
all  men  are  equal. 

"  Resolved,  That  we  claim  no  authority  in  the  Federal  Government  to  abolish  slav- 
ery in  the  several  States,  but  we  do  claim  for  it  Constitutional  power  perpetually  to 
prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  territory  now  free,  and  abolish  it  wherever, 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  it  exists. 

"  Resolved,  That  this  power  ought  immediately  to  be  exercised  in  prohibiting  the 
introduction  and  existence  of  slavery  in  New  Mexico  and  California,  in  abolishing 
slavery  and  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  on  the  high  seas,  and  wher- 
ever else,  imder  the  Constitution,  it  can  be  reached. 

"Resolved,  That  no  more  Slave  States  should  be  admitted  into  the  Federal  Union. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Government  ought  to  return  to  its  ancient  policy,  not  to  ex- 
tend, nationalize,  or  encoui'age,  but  to  limit,  localize,  and  discourage  slavery." 

At  Freeport  I  answered  several  interrogatories  that  had  been  propounded 
to  me  by  Judge  Douglas  at  the  Ottawa  meeting.  The  Judge  has  yet  not  seen 
fit  to  find  any  fault  with  the  position  that  I  took  in  regard  to  those  seven 


152  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

interrogatories,  which  were  certainly  broad  enough,  in  all  conscience,  to  cover 
the  entire  ground.  In  my  answers,  which  have  been  printed,  and  all  have 
had  the  opportunity  of  seeing,  1  take  the  ground  that  those  who  elect  me 
must  expect  that  I  will  do  nothing  which  will  not  be  in  accordance  with  those 
answers.  I  have  some  right  to  assert  that  Judge  Douglas  has  no  fault  to  find 
with  them.  But  he  chooses  to  still  try  to  thrust  me  upon  different  ground, 
without  paying  any  attention  to  my  answers,  the  obtaining  of  which  from  me 
cost  him  so  much  trouble  and  concern.  At  the  same  time  I  propounded  four 
interrogatories  to  Inm,  claiming  it  as  a  right  that  he  should  answer  as  many 
interrogatories  for  me  as  I  did  for  him,  and  I  would  reserve  myself  for  a  future 
instalment  when  I  got  them  ready.  The  Judge,  in  answering  me  upon  that 
occasion,  put  in  what  I  suppose  he  intends  as  answers  to  all  four  of  my  inter- 
roaatories.  The  first  one  of  these  interrogatories  I  have  before  me,  and  it  is 
in  these  words  :  — 

"Question  1.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means  entirely  unobjectionable  in 
all  other  respects,  adopt  a  State  constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union 
under  it,  before  they  have  the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants  according  to  the 
English  bill,  —  some  ninety-three  thousand,  —  will  you  vote  to  admit  them  %  " 

As  I  read  the  Judge's  answer  in  the  newspaper,  and  as  I  remember  it  as 
pronounced  at  the  time,  he  does  not  give  any  answer  which  is  equivalent  to 
yes  or  no,  —  I  will  or  I  wont.  He  answers  at  very  considerable  length, 
rather  quarrelling  with  me  for  asking  the  question,  and  insisting  that  Judge 
Trumbull  had  done  something  that  I  ought  to  say  something  about,  and  iinally 
getting  out  such  statements  as  induce  me  to  infer  that  he  means  to  be  under- 
stood he  will,  in  that  supposed  case,  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas.  I  only 
bring  this  forward  now  for  the  purpose  of  saying  that  if  he  chooses  to  put  a 
different  construction  upon  his  answer,  he  may  do  it.  But  if  he  does  not,  I 
shall  from  this  time  forward  assume  that  he  will  vote  for  the  admission  of 
Kansas  in  disregard  of  the  English  bilL  He  has  the  right  to  remove  any  mis- 
understanding I  may  have.  I  only  mention  it  now,  that  I  may  hereafter 
assume  this  to  be  the  true  construction  of  his  answer,  if  he  does  not  now  choose 
to  correct  me. 

The  second  interrogatory  that  I  propounded  to  him  was  this  :  — 

Question  2.  Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory,  in  anj^  lawful  way, 
against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  Constitution  ]  " 

To  this  Judge  Douglas  answered  that  they  can  lawfully  exclude  slavery 
from  the  Territory  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  Constitution.  He  goes  on  to 
tell  us  how  it  can  be  done.  As  I  understand  him,  he  holds  that  it  can  be  done 
by  the  Territorial  Legislature  refusing  to  make  any  enactments  for  the  protec- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  Territory,  and  especially  by  adopting  unfriendly  legis- 
lation to  it.  For  the  sake  of  clearness,  I  state  it  again  :  that  they  can  exclude 
slavery  from  the  Territory,  1st,  by  withholding  what  he  assumes  to  be  an 
indispensable  assistance  to  it  in  the  way  of  legislation  ;  and,  2d,  by  unfriendly 
legislation.  If  I  rightly  understand  him,  I  wish  to  ask  your  attention  for  a 
while  to  his  position. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided  that 
any  Congressional  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  unconstitutional ; 
that  they  have  reached  this  proposition  as  a  conclusion  from  their  former 


AND   STEPHEN  >.   DOUGLAS.  153 

proposition,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly  recognizes 
property  in  slaves,  and  from  that  other  Constitutional  provision,  that  no  per- 
son shall  be  deprived  of  property  without  due  process  of  law.  Hence  they 
reach  the  conclusion  that  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly 
recognizes  property  in  slaves,  and  prohibits  any  person  from  being  deprived  of 
property  without  due  process  of  law,  to  pass  an  Act  of  Congress  by  which  a 
man  who  owned  a  slave  on  one  side  of  a  line  would  be  deprived  of  him  if  he 
took  him  on  the  other  side,  is  depriving  him  of  that  property  without  due 
process  of  law.  That  I  understand  to  be  the  decision  of  tlie  Supreme  Court. 
I  understand  also  that  Judge  Douglas  adheres  most  firmly  to  that  decision ; 
and  the  difficulty  is,  how  is  it  possible  for  any  power  to  exclude  slavery  from 
the  Territory,  unless  in  violation  of  that  decision  ?     That  is  the  difficulty. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  1850,  Judge  Trumbull,  in  a  speech 
substantially,  if  not  directly,  put  tlie  same  interrogatory  to  Judge  Douglas,  as 
to  whether  the  people  of  a  Territory  had  the  lawful  power  to  exclude  slavery 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution.  Judge  Douglas  then  answered  at 
considerable  length,  and  his  answer  will  be  found  in  the  "  Congressional  Globe," 
under  date  of  June  9th,  1856.  Tlie  Judge  said  that  whether  the  people  could 
exclude  slavery  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution  or  not  was  a  question 
to  be  decided  hi/  the  Supreme  Court.  He  put  that  proposition,  as  will  be  seen 
by  the  "  Congressional  Globe,"  in  a  variety  of  forms,  all  running  to  the  same 
thing  in  substance,  —  that  it  was  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court.  I  main- 
tain that  when  he  says,  after  the  Supreme  Court  have  decided  the  question, 
that  the  people  may  yet  exclude  slavery  by  any  means  whatever,  he  does 
virtually  say  that  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court.  He  shifts  his 
ground.  I  appeal  to  you  whether  he  did  not  say  it  was  a  question  for  the 
Supreme  Court  ?  Has  not  the  Supreme  Court  decided  that  question  ?  "When 
he  now  says  the  people  may  exclude  slavery,  does  he  not  make  it  a  question 
for  the  people  ?  Does  he  not  virtually  shift  his  ground  and  say  that  it  is  not 
a  question  for  the  court,  but  for  the  people  ?  This  is  a  very  simple  proposi- 
tion, —  a  very  plain  and  naked  one.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  deciding  it.  In  a  variety  of  ways  he  said  that  it  was  a  question  for  the 
Supreme  Court.  He  did  not  stop  then  to  tell  us  that  whatever  the  Supreme 
Court  decides,  the  people  can  by  withholding  necessar}^  "  police  regulations  " 
keep  slavery  out.  He  did  not  make  any  such  answer.  I  submit  to  you  now 
whether  the  new  state  of  the  case  has  not  induced  the  Judge  to  sheer  away 
from  his  original  ground.  Would  not  this  be  the  impression  of  every  fair- 
minded  man  ? 

I  hold  that  the  proposition  that  slavery  cannot  enter  a  new  country  with- 
out police  regulations  is  historically  false.  It  is  not  true  at  all.  I  hold  that 
the  history  of  this  country  shows  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  originally 
planted  upon  this  continent  without  these  "  police  regulations "  which  the 
Judge  now  thinks  necessary  for  the  actual  establishment  of  it.  Not  only  so, 
but  is  there  not  another  fact :  how  came  this  Dred  Scott  decision  to  be  made  ? 
It  was  made  upon  the  case  of  a  negro  being  taken  and  actually  held  in  slavery 
in  Minnesota  Territory,  claiming  his  freedom  because  the  Act  of  Congress  pro- 
hibited his  being  so  held  there.  Will  tlie  Judge  pretend  that  Dred  Scott  loas  not 
held  there  without  p)olice  regulations  1  There  is  at  least  one  matter  of  record 
as  to  his  having  been  held  in  slavery  in  the  Territory,  not  only  without  police 
regulations,  but  in  the  teeth  of  Congressional  legislation  supposed  to  be  valid 
at  the  time.  This  shows  that  there  is  vigor  enough  in  slavery  to  plant  itself 
in  a  new  country  even  against  unfriendly  legislation.     It  takes  not  only  law, 

20 


154  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

but  the  enforcement  of  law  to  keep  it  out.    That  is  the  history  of  this  country 
upon  the  subject. 

I  wish  to  ask  one  other  question.  It  being  understood  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  guarantees  property  in  slaves  in  the  Territories,  if  there 
is  any  infringement  of  the  right  of  that  property,  would  not  the  United  States 
courts,  organized  for  the  government  of  the  Territory,  apply  such  remedy  as 
might  be  necessary  in  that  case  ?  It  is  a  maxim  held  by  the  courts  that  there 
is  no  wrong  without  its  remedy ;  and  the  courts  have  a  remedy  for  whatever 
is  acknowledged  and  treated  as  a  wrong. 

Again :  I  will  ask  you,  my  friends,  if  you  were  elected  members  of  the 
Legislature,  what  would  be  the  first  thing  you  would  have  to  do  before  enter- 
ing upon  your  duties  ?  Stvear  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Suppose  you  believe,  as  Judge  Douglas  does,  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  guarantees  to  your  neighbor  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  that  Ter- 
ritory ;  that  they  are  his  property  :  how  can  you  clear  your  oaths  unless  you 
give  him  such  legislation  as  is  necessary  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  that  property  ? 
What  do  you  understand  by  supporting  the  Constitution  of  a  State,  or  of  the 
United  States  ?  Is  it  not  to  give  such  constitutional  helps  to  the  rights  estab- 
lished by  that  Constitution  as  may  be  practically  needed  ?  Can  you,  if  you 
swear  to  support  the  Constitution,  and  believe  that  the  Constitution  establishes 
a  right,  clear  your  oath,  without  giving  it  support  ?  Do  you  support  the  Con- 
stitution if,  knowing  or  believing  there  is  a  right  established  under  it  which 
needs  specific  legislation,  you  withhold  that  legislation  ?  Do  you  not  violate 
and  disregard  your  oath  ?  I  can  conceive  of  nothing  plainer  in  the  world. 
There  can  be  nothing  in  the  words  "  support  the  Constitution,"  if  you  may 
run  counter  to  it  by  refusing  support  to  any  right  established  under  the  Con- 
stitution. And  what  I  say  here  will  hold  with  still  more  force  against  the 
Judge's  doctrine  of  "unfriendly  legislation."  How  could  you,  having  sworn 
to  support  the  Constitution,  and  believing  it  guaranteed  the  right  to  hold  slaves 
in  the  Territories,  assist  in  legislation  intended  to  defeat  that  right  ?  That 
would  be  violating  your  own  view  of  the  Constitution.  Not  only  so,  but 
if  you  were  to  do  so,  how  long  would  it  take  the  courts  to  hold  your  votes 
unconstitutional  and  void  ?     Not  a  moment. 

Lastly,  I  would  ask :  Is  not  Congress  itself  under  obligation  to  give  legis- 
lative support  to  any  right  that  is  established  under  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution ?  I  repeat  the  question :  Is  not  Congress  itself  bound  to  give 
legislative  support  to  any  right  that  is  established  in  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution ?  A  member  of  Congress  swears  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States ;  and  if  he  sees  a  right  established  by  that  Constitution  which 
needs  specific  legislative  protection,  can  he  clear  his  oath  without  giving  that 
protection  ?  Let  me  ask  you  why  many  of  us  who  are  opposed  to  slavery 
upon  principle  give  our  acquiescence  to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law  ?  Why  do  we 
hold  ourselves  under  obligations  to  pass  such  a  law,  and  abide  by  it  when  it  is 
passed  ?  Because  the  Constitution  makes  provision  that  the  owners  of  slaves 
shall  have  the  right  to  reclaim  them.  It  gives  the  right  to  reclaim  slaves  ; 
and  that  right  is,  as  Judge  Douglas  says,  a  barren  right,  unless  there  is  legis- 
lation that  will  enforce  it. 

The  mere  declaration,  "  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State 
under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  consequence  of  any  law 
or  regulation  therein  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  deliv- 
ered up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due,"  is 
powerless  without  specific  legislation  to  enforce  it.     Now,  on  what  ground 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  155 

would  a  member  of  Congress  who  is  opposed  to  slavery  in  the  abstract,  vote 
for  a  Fugitive  law,  as  I  would  deem  it  my  duty  to  do  ?  Because  there  is  a 
constitutional  right  which  needs  legislation  to  enforce  it.  And  although  it  is 
distasteful  to  me,  I  have  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  ;  and  having  so 
sworn,  I  cannot  conceive  that  I  do  support  it  if  I  withhold  from  that  right 
any  necessary  legislation  to  make  it  practical.  And  if  that  is  true  in  regard 
to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law,  is  the  right  to  have  fugitive  slaves  reclaimed  any  better 
fixed  in  the  Constitution  than  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territories  ?  For 
this  decision  is  a  just  exposition  of  the  Constitution,  as  Judge  Douglas  thinks. 
Is  the  one  right  any  better  than  the  other  ?  Is  there  any  man  who,  while  a 
member  of  Congress,  would  give  support  to  the  one  any  more  than  the  other  ? 
If  I  wished  to  refuse  to  give  legislative  support  to  slave  property  in  the  Terri- 
tories, if  a  member  of  Congress,  I  could  not  do  it,  holding  the  view  that  the 
Constitution  establishes  that  right.  If  I  did  it  at  all,  it  would  be  because  I 
deny  that  this  decision  properly  construes  the  Constitution.  But  if  I  acknowl- 
edge, with  Judge  Douglas,  that  this  decision  properly  construes  the  Constitu- 
tion, I  cannot  conceive  that  I  would  be  less  than  a  perjured  man  if  I  should 
refuse  in  Congress  to  give  such  protection  to  that  property  as  in  its  nature  it 
needed. 

At  the  end  of  what  I  have  said  here  I  propose  to  give  the  Judge  my  fifth 
interrogatory,  which  he  may  take  and  answer  at  his  leisure.  My  fifth  inter- 
rogatory is  this  :  — 

If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of  a  United  States  Territory  should  need  and 
demand  Congressional  legislation  for  the  protection  of  their  slave  property  in 
such  Territory,  would  you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for  or  against  such 
legislation  ? 

Judge  DouGLA-S  :  Will  you  repeat  that  ?     I  want  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of  a  United  States  Territory 
should  need  and  demand  Congressional  legislation  for  the  protection  of  their 
slave  property  in  such  Territory,  would  you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for 
or  against  such  legislation  ? 

I  am  aware  that  in  some  of  the  speeches  Judge  Douglas  has  made,  he  has 
spoken  as  if  he  did  not  know  or  think  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided 
that  a  Territorial  legislature  cannot  exclude  slavery.  Precisely  what  the 
Judge  would  say  upon  the  subject,  —  whether  he  would  say  definitely  that  he 
does  not  understand  they  have  so  decided,  or  whether  he  would  say  he  does 
understand  that  the  court  have  so  decided,  —  I  do  not  know;  but  I  know  that 
in  his  speech  at  Springfield  he  spoke  of  it  as  a  thing  they  had  not  decided 
yet ;  and  in  his  answer  to  me  at  Freeport,  he  spoke  of  it,  so  far,  again,  as  I 
can  comprehend  it,  as  a  thing  that  had  not  yet  been  decided.  Now,  I  hold 
that  if  the  Judge  does  entertain  that  view,  I  think  tliat  he  is  not  mistaken  in 
so  far  as  it  can  be  said  that  the  court  has  not  decided  anything  save  the  mere 
question  of  jurisdiction.  I  know  the  legal  arguments  that  can  be  made, — 
that  after  a  court  has  decided  that  it  cannot  take  jurisdiction  in  a  case,  it  then 
has  decided  all  that  is  before  it,  and  that  is  the  end  of  it.  A  plausible  argu- 
ment can  be  made  in  favor  of  that  proposition ;  but  I  know  that  Judge 
Douglas  has  said  in  one  of  his  speeches  that  the  court  went  forward,  like 
honest  men  as  they  were,  and  decided  all  the  points  in  the  case.  If  any  points 
are  really  extra-judicially  decided  because  not  necessarily  before  them,  then 
this  one  as  to  the  power  of  the  Territorial  legislature  to  exclude  slavery  is  one 
of  them,  as  also  the  one  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  null  and  void. 
They  are  both  extra-judicial,  or  neither  is,  according  as  the  court  held  that 


156  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

they  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case  between  the  parties,  because  of  want  of 
capacity  of  one  party  to  maintain  a  siut  in  that  court.  I  want,  if  I  have 
sufficient  time,  to  show  that  the  court  did  pass  its  opinion ;  but  that  is  the 
only  thing  actually  done  in  the  case.  If  they  did  not  decide,  they  showed 
what  they  were  ready  to  decide  whenever  the  matter  was  before  them.  What 
is  that  opinion  ?  After  having  argued  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  pass  a 
law  excluding  slavery  from  a  United  States  Territory,  they  then  used  language 
to  this  effect:  That  inasmuch  as  Congress  itself  could  not  exercise  such  a 
power,  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  course  that  it  could  not  authorize  a  Terri- 
torial government  to  exercise  it ;  for  the  Territorial  legislature  can  do  no  more 
than  Congress  could  do.  Thus  it  expressed  its  opinion  emphatically  against 
the  power  of  a  Territorial  legislature  to  exclude  slavery,  leaving  us  in  just  as 
little  doubt  on  that  point  as  upon  any  other  point  they  really  decided. 

Now,  my  fellow-citizens,  I  will  detain  you  only  a  little  while  longer ;  my 
time  is  nearly  out.  I  find  a  report  of  a  speech  made  by  Judge  Douglas  at 
Joliet,  since  we  last  met  at  Freeport,  —  published,  I  believe,  in  the  "  Missouri 
Eepublican,"  —  on  the  9th  of  this  month,  in  which  Judge  Douglas  says :  — 

"  You  know  at  Ottawa  I  read  this  platform,  and  asked  him  if  he  concurred  iu 
each  and  all  of  the  principles  set  forth  in  it.  He  would  not  answer  these  ques- 
tions. At  last  I  said  frankly,  I  wish  you  to  answer  them,  because  when  I  get 
them  up  here  where  the  color  of  your  principles  are  a  little  darker  than  in  Egypt,  I 
intend  to  trot  you  down  to  Jonesboro.  The  very  notice  that  I  was  going  to  take 
him  down  to  Egypt  made  him  tremble  in  the  knees  so  that  he  had  to  be  carried 
from  the  platform.  He  laid  up  seven  days,  and  in  the  mean  time  held  a  consulta- 
tion with  his  political  physicians  ;  they  had  Lovejoy  and  Farnsworth  and  all  the 
leaders  of  the  Abolition  party,  they  consulted  it  all  over,  and  at  last  Lincoln  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  he  would  answer,  so  he  came  up  to  Freeport  last  Friday." 

Now,  that  statement  altogether  furnishes  a  subject  for  philosophical  con- 
templation. I  have  been  treating  it  in  that  way,  and  I  have  really  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  I  can  explain  it  in  no  other  way  than  by  believing  the 
Judge  is  crazy.  If  he  was  iu  his  right  mind,  I  cannot  conceive  how  he  would 
have  risked  disgusting  the  four  or  five  thousand  of  his  own  friends  who  stood 
there,  and  knew,  as  to  my  having  been  carried  from  the  platform,  that  there 
was  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it. 

Judge  Douglas  :  Did  n't  they  carry  you  off  ? 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  There  !  that  question  illustrates  the  character  of  this  man 
Douglas  exactly.  He  smiles  now,  and  says,  "  Did  n't  they  carry  you  off  ? " 
But  he  said  then  "  he  had  to  he  carried  off ;  "  and  he  said  it  to  convince  the 
country  that  he  had  so  completely  broken  me  down  by  his  speech  that  I  had 
to  be  carried  away.  Now  he  seeks  to  dodge  it,  and  asks,  "  Did  n't  they  carry 
you  off  ? "  Yes,  they  did.  But,  Judge  Dovglas,  ivhy  did  nt  you  tell  the  truth  ? 
I  would  like  to  know  why  you  did  n't  tell  the  truth  about  it.  And  then 
again,  "  He  laid  up  seven  days."  He  puts  this  in  print  for  the  people  of  the 
country  to  read  as  a  serious  document.  I  think  if  he  had  been  in  his  sober 
senses  he  would  not  have  risked  that  barefacedness  in  the  presence  of  thou- 
sands of  his  own  friends,  who  knew  that  I  made  speeches  within  six  of  the 
seven  days  at  Henry,  Marshall  County,  Augusta,  Hancock  County,  and 
Macomb,  McDonough  County,  including  all  the  necessary  travel  to  meet 
him  again  at  Freeport  at  the  end  of  the  six  days.  Now,  I  say  there  is  no 
charitable  way  to  look  at  that  statement,  except  to  conclude  that  he  is 
actually  crazy.     There  is  another  thing  in  that  statement  that  alarmed  me 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  157 

very  greatly  as  he  states  it,  that  he  was  going  to  "  trot  me  down  to  Egypt.'' 
Thereby  lie  would  have  you  to  infer  that  I  would  not  come  to  Egypt  unless 
he  forced  me,  —  that  I  could  not  be  got  here,  unless  he,  giant-like,  had  hauled 
me  down  here.  That  statement  he  makes,  too,  in  the  teeth  of  the  knowledge 
that  I  had  made  the  stipulation  to  come  down  here,  and  that  he  himself  had 
teen  very  rehidant  to  enter  into  the  stiptdation.  More  than  all  this,  Judge 
Douglas,  when  he  made  that  statement,  must  have  been  crazy,  and  wholly  out 
of  his  sober  senses,  or  else  he  would  have  known  that  when  he  got  me  down 
here,  that  promise  —  that  windy  promise  —  of  his  powers  to  annihilate  me, 
would  n't  amount  to  anything.  Now,  how  little  do  I  look  like  being  carried 
away  trembling  ?  Let  the  Judge  go  on  ;  and  after  he  is  done  with  his  half  hour, 
I  want  you  all,  if  I  can't  go  home  myself,  to  let  me  stay  and  rot  here;  and  if 
anything  happens  to  the  Judge,  if  I  cannot  carry  him  to  the  hotel  and  put  him 
to  bed,  let  me  stay  here  and  rot.  I  say,  then,  there  is  something  extraordinary 
in  this  statement.  I  ask  you  if  you  know  any  other  living  man  who  would 
make  such  a  statement  ?  I  will  ask  my  friend  Casey,  over  there,  if  he  would 
do  such  a  thing  ?  Would  he  send  that  out,  and  have  his  men  take  it  as  the 
truth  ?  Did  the  Judge  talk  of  trotting  me  down  to  Egypt  to  scare  me  to 
death  ?  Why,  I  know  this  people  better  than  he  does.  I  was  raised  just  a 
little  east  of  here.  I  am  a  part  of  this  people.  But  the  Judge  was  raised 
further  nortli,  and  perhaps  he  has  some  horrid  idea  of  what  this  people  might 
be  induced  to  do.  But  really  I  have  talked  about  this  matter  perhaps  longer 
than  I  ought,  for  it  is  no  great  thing  ;  and  yet  the  smallest  are  often  the  most 
difficult  things  to  deal  with.  The  Judge  has  set  about  seriously  trying  to 
make  the  impression  that  when  we  meet  at  different  places  I  am  literally  in 
his  clutches,  —  that  I  am  a  poor,  helpless,  decrepit  mouse,  and  that  I  can  do 
nothing  at  all.  This  is  one  of  the  ways  he  has  taken  to  create  that  impres- 
sion. I  don't  know  any  other  way  to  meet  it,  except  this.  I  don't  want  to 
quarrel  with  him,  —  to  call  him  a  liar ;  but  when  I  come  square  up  to  him  I 
don't  know  what  else  to  call  him,  if  I  must  tell  the  truth  out.  I  want  to  be 
at  peace,  and  reserve  all  my  fighting  powers  for  necessary  occasions.  My 
time,  now,  is  very  nearly  out,  and  I  give  up  the  trifle  that  is  left  to  the  Judge, 
to  let  him  set  my  knees  trembling  again,  if  he  can. 


MR.    DOUGLAS'S   REPLY. 

My  friends,  while  I  am  very  grateful  to  you  for  the  enthusiasm  which  you 
show  for  me,  I  will  say  in  all  candor,  that  your  quietness  will  be  much  more 
agreeable  than  your  applause,  inasmuch  as  you  deprive  me  of  some  part  of  my 
time  whenever  you  cheer. 

I  will  commence  where  Mr.  Lincoln  left  off,  and  make  a  remark  upon  this 
serious  complaint  of  his  about  my  speech  at  Joliet.  I  did  say  there  in  a  play- 
ful manner  that  when  I  put  these  questions  to  Mr.  Lincoln  at  Ottawa  he 
failed  to  answer,  and  that  he  trembled  and  had  to  be  carried  off  the  stand,  and 
required  seven  days  to  get  up  his  reply.  That  he  did  not  walk  off  from  that 
stand  he  will  not  deny.  That  when  the  crowd  went  away  from  the  stand 
with  me,  a  few  persons  carried  him  home  on  their  shoulders  and  laid  him 
down,  he  will  admit.  I  wish  to  say  to  you  that  whenever  I  degrade  my 
friends  and  myself  by  allowing  them  to  carry  me  on  their  backs  along  through 
the  public  streets,  when  I  am  able  to  walk,  I  am  willing  to  be  deemed  crazy. 


158  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

I  did  not  say  whether  I  beat  him  or  he  beat  me  in  the  argument.  It  is  true 
I  put  these  questions  to  him,  and  I  put  them,  not  as  mere  idle  questions,  but 
showed  that  I  based  them  upon  the  creed  of  the  Black  Republican  party  as 
declared  by  their  conventions  in  that  portion  of  the  State  which  he  depends 
upon  to  elect  him,  and  desired  to  know  whether  he  indorsed  that  creed.  He 
would  not  answer.  When  I  reminded  him  that  I  intended  brinfiincc  him  into 
Egypt  and  renewing  my  questions,if  he  refused  to  answer,  he  then  consulted, 
and  did  get  up  his  answers  one  week  after,  —  answers  which  I  may  refer  to  in 
a  few  minutes,  and  show  you  how  equivocal  they  are.  My  object  was  to 
make  him  avow  whether  or  not  he  stood  by  the  platform  of  his  party ;  the 
resolutions  I  then  read,  and  upon  which  I  based  my  questions,  had  been 
adopted  by  his  party  in  the  Galena  Congressional  District,  and  the  Chicago 
and  Bloomington  Congressional  Districts,  composing  a  large  majority  of  the 
counties  in  this  State  that  give  Eepublican  or  Abolition  majorities.  Mr. 
Lincoln  cannot  and  will  not  deny  that  the  doctrines  laid  down  in  these  resolu- 
tions were  in  substance  put  forth  in  Lovejoy's  resolutions,  w^hich  were  voted 
for  by  a  majority  of  his  party,  some  of  them,  if  not  all,  receiving  the  support 
of  every  man  of  his  party.  Hence,  I  laid  a  foundation  for  my  questions  to 
him  before  I  asked  him  whether  that  was  or  was  not  the  platform  of  his  party. 
He  says  that  he  answered  my  questions.  One  of  them  was  whether  he  would 
vote  to  admit  any  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union.  The  creed  of  the 
Eepublican  party  as  set  forth  in  the  resolutions  of  their  various  conventions 
was,  that  they  would  under  no  circumstances  vote  to  admit  another  Slave 
State.  It  was  put  forth  in  the  Lovejoy  resolutions  in  the  Legislature ;  it  was 
put  forth  and  passed  in  a  majority  of  all  the  counties  of  this  State  which  give 
Abolition  or  Republican  majorities,  or  elect  members  to  the  Legislature  of 
that  school  of  politics.  I  had  a  right  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  for  or 
against  the  admission  of  another  Slave  State,  in  the  event  the  people  wanted 
it.  He  first  answered  that  he  was  not  pledged  on  the  subject,  and  then 
said :  — 

"In  regard  to  the  other  question,  of  whether  I  am  pledged  to  the  admission  of 
anj'-  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union,  I  state  to  you  very  frankly  that  I  would  he 
exceedingly  sorry  ever  to  be  put  in  the  position  of  having  to  pass  on  that  question. 
I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be  anotlier  Slave  State 
admitted  into  the  Union  ;  hut  I  must  add  that  if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  the 
Territories  during  the  Territorial  existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the 
people,  having  a  fair  chance  and  clean  field  when  they  come  to  adopt  a  Constitution, 
do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  adopt  a  slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the 
actual  presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the 
country,  but  to  admit  them  into  the  Union." 

Now  analyze  that  answer.  In  the  first  place,  he  says  he  would  be  exceed- 
ingly sorry  to  be  put  in  a  position  where  he  would  have  to  vote  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  admission  of  a  Slave  State.  Why  is  he  a  candidate  for  the  Senate 
if  he  would  be  sorry  to  be  put  in  that  position  ?  I  trust  the  people  of  Illinois 
will  not  put  him  in  a  position  which  he  would  be  so  sorry  to  occupy.  The  next 
position  he  takes  is  that  he  would  be  glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be 
another  Slave  State,  yet,  in  certain  contingencies,  he  might  have  to  vote  for 
one.  What  is  that  contingency  ?  "  If  Congress  keeps  slavery  out  by  law 
while  it  is  a  Territory,  and  then  the  people  should  have  a  fair  chance  and 
should  adopt  slavery,  uninfluenced  by  the  presence  of  the  institution,"  he  sup- 
posed he  would  have  to  admit  the  State.     Suppose  Congress  should  not  keep 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  159 

slavery  out  during  their  Territorial  existence,  then  how  would  he  vote  when 
the  people  applied  for  admission  into  the  Union  with  a  slave  constitution  ? 
That  he  does  not  answer  ;  and  that  is  the  condition  of  every  Territory  we 
have  now  got.  Slavery  is  not  kept  out  of  Kansas  by  Act  of  Congress ;  and 
when  I  put  the  question  to  Mr,  Lincoln,  whether  he  will  vote  for  the  admis- 
sion with  or  without  slavery,  as  her  people  may  desire,  he  will  not  answer, 
and  you  have  not  got  an  answer  from  him.  In  Nebraska,  slavery  is  not  pro- 
hibited by  Act  of  Congress,  but  the  people  are  allowed,  under  the  Nebraska 
bill,  to  do  as  they  please  on  the  subject ;  and  when  I  ask  him  whether  he  will 
vote  to  admit  Nebraska  with  a  slave  constitution  if  her  people  desire  it,  he 
will  not  answer.  So  with  New  JMexico,  Washington  Territory,  Arizona,  and 
the  four  new  States  to  be  admitted  from  Texas.  You  cannot  get  an  answer 
from  him  to  these  questions.  His  answer  only  applies  to  a  given  case,  to  a 
condition,  —  things  which  he  knows  do  not  exist  in  any  one  Territory  in  the 
Union.  He  tries  to  give  you  to  understand  that  he  would  allow  the  people 
to  do  as  they  please,  and  yet  he  dodges  the  question  as  to  every  Territory  in 
the  Union.  I  now  ask  why  cannot  Mr.  Lincoln  answer  to  each  of  these  Ter- 
ritories ?  He  has  not  done  it,  and  he  will  not  do  it.  The  Abolitionists  up 
north  understand  that  this  answer  is  made  with  a  view  of  not  committinff 
himself  on  any  one  Territory  now  in  existence.  It  is  so  understood  there, 
and  you  cannot  expect  an  answer  from  him  on  a  case  that  applies  to  any  one 
Territory,  or  applies  to  the  new  States  which  by  compact  we  are  pledged  to 
admit  out  of  Texas,  when  they  have  the  requisite  population  and  desire 
admission.,  I  submit  to  you  whether  he  has  made  a  frank  answer,  so  that 
you  can  tell  how  he  would  vote  in  any  one  of  these  cases.  "  He  would  be 
sorry  to  be  put  in  the  position."  Why  would  he  be  sorry  to  be  put  in  this 
position  if  his  duty  required  him  to  give  the  vote  ?  If  the  people  of  a  Terri- 
tory ought  to  be  permitted  to  come  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  with  slavery  or 
without  it,  as  they  pleased,  why  not  give  the  vote  admitting  them  cheerfully  ? 
If  in  his  opinion  they  ought  not  to  come  in  with  slavery,  even  if  they  wanted 
to,  why  not  say  that  he  would  cheerfully  vote  against  their  admission  ?  His 
intimation  is  that  conscience  would  not  let  him  vote  "  No,"  and  he  would 
be  sorry  to  do  that  which  his  conscience  would  compel  him  to  do  as  an 
honest  man. 

In  regard  to  the  contract,  or  bargain,  between  Trumbull,  the  Abolitionists, 
and  him,  which  he  denies,  I  wish  to  say  that  the  charge  can  be  proved  by 
notorious  historical  facts.  Trumbull,  Lovejoy,  Giddings,  Fred  Douglass,  Hale, 
and  Banks  were  travelling  the  State  at  that  time  making  speeches  on  the 
same  side  and  in  the  same  cause  with  him.  He  contents  himself  with  the 
simple  denial  that  no  such  thing  occurred.  Does  he  deny  that  he,  and 
Trumbull,  and  Breese,  and  Giddings,  and  Chase,  and  Fred  Douglass,  and 
Lovejoy,  and  all  those  Abolitionists  and  deserters  from  the  Democratic  party 
did  make  speeches  all  over  this  State  in  the  same  common  cause  ?  Does  he 
deny  that  Jim  Matheny  was  then,  and  is  now,  his  confidential  friend,  and  does 
he  deny  that  Matheny  made  the  charge  of  the  bargain  and  fraud  in  his  own 
language,  as  I  have  read  it  from  his  printed  speech  ?  Matheny  spoke  of  his 
own  personal  knowledge  of  that  bargain. existing  between  Lincoln,  Trumbull,  and 
the  Abolitionists.  He  still  remains  Lincoln's  confidential  friend,  and  is  now 
a  candidate  for  Congress,  and  is  canvassing  the  Springfield  District  for  Lin- 
coln. I  assert  that  I  can  prove  the  charge  to  be  true  in  detail  if  I  can  ever 
get  it  where  I  can  summon  and  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses.  I  have 
the  statement  of  another  man  to  the  same  effect  as  that  made  by  Matheny, 


160  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

which  I  am  not  permitted  to  use  yet;  but  Jim  IMatheny  is  a  good  witness  on 
that  point,  and  the  history  of  the  country  is  conclusive  upon  it.  That  Lin- 
cohi  up  to  that  time  had  been  a  Whig,  and  then  undertook  to  Abolitionize 
the  Whigs  and  bring  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  is  beyond  denial ;  that 
Trumbull  up  to  that  time  had  been  a  Democrat,  and  deserted,  and  under- 
took to  Abolitionize  the  Democracy,  and  take  them  into  the  Abolition  camp, 
is  beyond  denial ;  that  they  are  both  now  active,  leading,  distinguished  mem- 
bers of  this  Abolition  liepublicau  party,  in  full  communion,  is  a  fact  that 
cannot  be  questioned  or  denied. 

But  Lincoln  is  not  willing  to  be  responsible  for  the  creed  of  his  party. 
He  complains  because  I  hold  him  responsible;  and  in  order  to  avoid  the 
issue,  he  attempts  to  show  that  individuals  in  the  Democratic  party,  many 
years  ago,  expressed  Al)olition  sentiments.  It  is  true  that  Tom  Campbell, 
when  a  candidate  for  Congress  in  1850,  published  the  letter  which  Lincoln 
read.  When  I  asked  Lincoln  for  the  date  of  that  letter,  he  could  not  give  it. 
The  date  of  the  letter  has  been  suppressed  by  other  speakers  who  have  used 
it,  though  I  take  it  for  granted  that  Lincoln  did  not  know  the  date.  If 
he  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine,  he  will  find  that  the  letter  was  pub- 
lished only  two  days  before  the  election,  and  was  never  seen  until  after  it, 
except  in  one  county.  Tom  Campbell  would  have  been  beat  to  death  by  the 
Democratic  party  if  that  letter  had  been  made  public  in  his  district.  As  to 
Molony,  it  is  true  he  uttered  sentiments  of  the  kind  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Lincoln,  and  the  best  Democrats  would  not  vote  for  him  for  that  reason. 
I  returned  from  Washington  after  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  Measures  in 
1850,  and  when  I  found  Molony  running  under  Wentworth's  tutelage  and  on 
his  platform,  I  denounced  him,  and  declared  that  he  was  no  Democrat.  In 
my  speech  at  Chicago,  just  before  the  election  that  year,  I  went  before  the 
infuriated  people  of  that  city  and  vindicated  the  Compromise  Measures  of 
1850.  Eemember  the  city  council  had  passed  resolutions  nullifying  Acts  of 
Congress  and  instructing  the  police  to  withhold  their  assistance  from  the 
execution  of  the  laws  ;  and  as  I  was  the  only  man  in  the  city  of  Chicago  who 
was  responsible  for  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  Measures,  I  went  before 
the  crowd,  justified  each  and  every  one  of  those  measures;  and  let  it  be  said, 
to  the  eternal  honor  of  the  people  of  Chicago,  that  when  they  were  convinced 
by  my  exposition  of  those  measures  that  they  were  right,  and  they  had  done 
wrong  in  opposing  them,  they  repealed  their  nullifying  resolutions,  and 
declared  that  they  would  acquiesce  in  and  support  the  laws  of  the  land. 
Tliese  facts  are  well  known,  and  Mr.  Lincoln  can  only  get  up  individual 
instances,  dating  back  to  1849-'50,  which  are  contradicted  by  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  Democratic  creed. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  want  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  Black  Eepub- 
lican  doctrine  of  no  more  Slave  States.  Farnsworth  is  the  candidate  of  his 
party  to-day  in  the  Chicago  District,  and  he  made  a  speech  in  the  last  Con- 
gress in  which  he  called  upon  God  to  palsy  his  right  arm  if  he  ever  voted  for 
the  admission  of  another  Slave  State,  whether  the  people  wanted  it  or  not. 
Lovejoy  is  making  speeches  all  over  the  State  for  Lincoln  now,  and  taking 
ground  against  any  more  Slave  States.  Washburne,  the  Black  Eepublican 
candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Galena  District,  is  making  speeches  in  favor  of 
this  same  Abolition  platform  declaring  no  more  Slave  States.  Why  are  men 
running  for  Congress  in  the  northern  districts,  and  taking  that  Abolition 
phatform  for  their  guide,  wlien  Mr.  Lincoln  does  not  want  to  be  held  to  it 
down  here  in  Egypt  and  in  the  centre  of  the  State,  and  oljects  to  it  so  as  to 


AND   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  161 

get  votes  here  ?  Let  me  tell  Mr.  Lincoln  that  his  party  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  State  hold  to  that  Abolition  platform,  and  that  if  they  do  not  in  the 
south  and  in  the  centre,  they  present  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  a  "  house 
divided  against  itself,"  and  hence  "  cannot  stand."  I  now  bring  down  upon 
him  the  vengeance  of  his  own  scriptural  quotation,  and  give  it  a  more  appro- 
priate application  than  he  did,  when  I  say  to  him  that  his  party,  Abolition  in 
one  end  of  the  State,  and  opposed  to  it  in  the  other,  is  a  house  divided  against 
itself,  and  cannot  stand,  and  ought  not  to  stand,  for  it  attempts  to  cheat  the 
American  people  out  of  their  votes  by  disguising  its  sentiments. 

Mr.  Lincoln  attempts  to  cover  up  and  get  over  his  Abolitionism  by  telling 
you  that  he  was  raised  a  little  east  of  you,  beyond  the  Wabash  in  Indiana,  and  he 
thinks  that  makes  a  mighty  sound  and  good  man  of  him  on  all  these  questions. 
I  do  not  know  that  the  place  where  a  man  is  born  or  raised  has  much  to  do 
with  his  political  principles.  The  worst  Abolitionists  I  have  ever  known  in 
Illinois  have  been  men  who  have  sold  their  slaves  in  Alabama  and  Kentucky, 
and  have  come  here  and  turned  Abolitionists  whilst  spending  the  money 
got  for  the  negroes  they  sold  ;  and  I  do  not  know  that  an  Abolitionist  from 
Indiana  or  Kentucky  ought  to  have  any  more  credit  because  he  was  born  and 
raised  among  slaveholders.  I  do  not  know  that  a  native  of  Kentucky  is  more 
excusable  because,  raised  among  slaves,  his  father  and  mother  having  owned 
slaves,  he  comes  to  Illinois,  turns  Abolitionist,  and  slanders  the  graves  of  his 
father  and  mother,  and  breathes  curses  upon  the  institutions  imder  which  he 
was  born,  and  his  father  and  mother  bred.  True,  I  was  not  born  out  west 
here.  I  was  born  away  down  in  Yankee  land,  I  was  born  in  a  valley  in  Ver- 
mont, with  the  liigh  mountains  around  me.  I  love  the  old  green  mountains 
and  valleys  of  Vermont,  where  I  was  born,  and  where  I  played  in  my  child- 
hood. I  went  up  to  visit  them  some  seven  or  eight  years  ago,  for  the  first 
time  for  twenty  odd  years.  When  I  got  there  they  treated  me  very  kindly. 
They  invited  me  to  the  Commencement  of  their  college,  placed  me  on  the 
seats  with  their  distinguished  guests,  and  conferred  upon  me  the  degree  of 
LL.  D.  in  Latin  (doctor  of  laws),  —  the  same  as  they  did  old  Hickory,  at 
Cambridge,  many  years  ago  ;  and  I  give  you  my  word  and  honor  I  understood 
just  as  much  of  the  Latin  as  he  did.  When  they  got  through  conferring  the 
honorary  degree,  they  called  upon  me  for  a  speech  ;  and  I  got  up,  with  my  heart 
full  and  swelling  with  gratitude  for  their  kindness,  and  I  said  to  them,  "  My 
friends,  Vermont  is  the  most  glorious  spot  on  the  face  of  this  globe  for  a  man 
to  be  born  in,  provided  he  emigrates  wlien  he  is  very  young," 

I  emigrated  when  I  was  very  young.  I  came  out  here  when  I  was  a  boy, 
and  I  found  my  mind  liberalized,  and  my  opinions  enlarged,  when  I  got  on 
these  broad  prairies,  with  only  the  heavens  to  bound  my  vision,  instead  of  hav- 
ing them  circumscribed  by  the  little  narrow  ridges  that  surrounded  the  valley 
where  I  was  born.  But  I  discard  all  flings  of  the  land  where  a  man  was  born. 
I  wish  to  be  judged  by  my  principles,  by  those  great  public  measures  and 
constitutional  principles  upon  which  the  peace,  the  happiness,  and  the  per- 
petuity of  this  Eepublic  now  rest. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  framed  another  question,  propounded  it  to  me,  and  desired 
my  answer.  As  I  have  said  before,  I  did  not  put  a  question  to  him  tliat  I  did 
not  first  lay  a  foundation  for  by  showing  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  platform  of 
the  party  whose  votes  he  is  now  seeking,  adopted  in  a  majority  of  the  counties 
where  he  now  hopes  to  get  a  majority,  and  supported  by  the  candidates  of  his 
party  now  running  in  those  counties.  But  I  will  answer  his  question.  It  is 
as  follows :  "  If  the  slaveholding  citizens  of  a  United  States  Territory  should 

21 


162  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

need  and  demand  Congressional  legislation  for  the  protection  of  their  slave 
property  in  such  Territory,  would  you,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for  or 
against  such  legislation  ? "  I  answer  him  that  it  is  a  fundamental  article  in 
the  Democratic  creed  that  there  should  be  non-interference  and  non-interven- 
tion by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  or  Territories.  j\Ir.  Lincoln  could 
have  found  an  answer  to  his  question  in  the  Cincinnati  platform,  if  he  had 
desired  it.  Tlie  Democratic  party  have  always  stood  by  that  great  principle 
of  non-interference  and  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the 
States  and  Territories  alike,  and  I  stand  on  that  platform  now. 

Now,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  Lincoln  did  not  define 
his  own  position  in  his  own  question.  How  does  he  stand  on  that  question  ? 
He  put  the  question  to  me  at  Freeport  whether  or  not  I  would  vote  to  admit 
Kansas  into  the  Union  before  she  had  93,420  inhabitants.  I  answered  him  at 
once  that,  it  having  been  decided  that  Kansas  had  now  population  enough  for 
a  Slave  State,  she  had  population  enough  for  a  Free  State. 

I  answered  the  question  unequivocally  ;  and  tlien  I  asked  him  whether  he 
%vould  vote  for  or  against  the  admission  of  Kansas  before  she  had  93,420 
inhabitants,  and  he  would  not  answer  me.  To-day  he  has  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that,  in  his  opinion,  my  answer  on  that  question  was  not  quite  plain 
enough,  and  yet  he  has  not  answered  it  himself  He  now  puts  a  question  in 
relation  to  Congressional  interference  in  the  Territories  to  me.  I  answer  him 
direct,  and  yet  he  has  not  answered  the  question  himself.  I  ask  you  whether 
a  man  has  any  right,  in  common  decency,  to  put  questions  in  these  public 
discussions,  to  his  opponent,  which  he  will  not  answer  himself,  when  they  are 
pressed  liome  to  him.  I  have  asked  him  tliree  times  whether  he  would  vote 
to  admit  Kansas  whenever  the  people  applied  with  a  constitution  of  their  own 
making  and  their  own  adoption,  under  circumstances  that  were  fair,  just,  and 
unexceptionable  ;  but  I  cannot  get  an  answer  from  him.  Nor  will  he  answer 
the  question  which  he  put  to  me,  and  which  I  have  just  answered  in  relation 
to  Congressional  interference  in  the  Territories,  by  making  a  slave  code 
there. 

It  is  true  that  he  goes  on  to  answer  the  question  by  arguing  that  under  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  it  is  the  duty  of  a  man  to  vote  for  a  slave  code 
in  the  Territories.  He  says  that  it  is  his  duty,  under  the  decision  that  the 
court  has  made  ;  and  if  he  believes  in  that  decision  he  would  be  a  perjured 
man  if  he  did  not  give  the  vote.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  is  not  bound 
to  a  decision  which  is  contrary  to  his  opinions  just  as  much  as  to  one  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  opinions.  If  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  tribunal 
created  by  the  Constitution  to  decide  the  question,  is  final  and  binding,  is  he 
not  bound  by  it  just  as  strongly  as  if  he  was  for  it  instead  of  against  it  origi- 
nally ?  Is  every  man  in  this  land  allowed  to  resist  decisions  he  does  not  like, 
and  only  support  those  that  meet  his  approval  ?  What  are  important  courts 
worth,  unless  their  decisions  are  binding  on  all  good  citizens  ?  It  is  the  fun- 
damental principle  of  the  judiciary  that  its  decisions  are  final.  It  is  created 
for  that  purpose ;  so  that  when  you  cannot  agree  among  yourselves  on  a  dis- 
puted point,  you  appeal  to  the  judicial  tribunal,  which  steps  in  and  decides 
for  you ;  and  that  decision  is  then  binding  on  every  good  citizen.  It  is  the 
law  of  the  land  just  as  much  with  Mr.  Lincoln  against  it  as  for  it.  And  yet 
he  says  that  if  that  decision  is  binding,  he  is  a  perjured  man  if  he  does  not 
vote  for  a  slave  code  in  the  different  Territories  of  this  Union.  Well,  if  you 
[turning  to  Mr.  Lincoln]  are  not  going  to  resist  the  decision,  if  you  obey  it, 
and  do  not  intend  to  array  mob  law  against  the  constituted  authorities,  then. 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  163 

according  to  your  own  statement,  you  will  be  a  perjured  man  if  you  do  not 
vote  to  establish  slavery  in  these  Territories.  My  doctrine  is,  that  even  taking 
Mr.  Lincoln's  view  that  the  decision  recognizes  the  right  of  a  man  to  carry  his 
slaves  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  if  he  pleases,  yet  after  he  gets 
there  he  needs  affirmative  law  to  make  that  right  of  any  value.  Tiie  same 
doctrine  not  only  applies  to  slave  property,  but  all  other  kinds  of  property. 
Chief  Justice  Taney  places  it  upon  the  ground  that  slave  property  is  on  an 
equal  footing  with  other  property.  Suppose  one  of  your  merchants  should 
move  to  Kansas  and  open  a  liquor  store  :  he  has  a  right  to  take  groceries  and 
liquors  there  ;  but  the  mode  of  selling  them,  and  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  shall  be  sold,  and  all  the  remedies,  must  be  prescribed  by  local' legislation ; 
and  if  that  is  unfriendly,  it  will  drive  him  out  just  as  effectually  as  if  there 
was  a  constitutional  provision  against  the  sale  of  liquor.  So  the  absence  of 
local  legislation  to  encourage  and  support  slave  property  in  a  Territory  excludes 
it  practically  just  as  eff'ectually  as  if  there  was  a  positive  constitutional  pro- 
vision against  it.  Hence,  I  assert  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision  you 
cannot  maintain  slavery  a  day  in  a  Territory  where  there  is  an  unwilling 
people  and  unfriendly  legislation.  If  the  people  are  opposed  to  it,  our  right 
is  a  barren,  worthless,  useless  right ;  and  if  they  are  for  it,  they  will  support 
and  encourage  it.  We  come  right  back,  therefore,  to  the  practical  question, 
If  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery,  they  will  have  it ;  and  if  they  do 
not  want  it,  you  cannot  force  it  on  them.  And  this  is  the  practical  question, 
the  great  principle,  upon  which  our  institutions  rest.  I  am  willing  to  take 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  it  was  pronounced  by  that  august  tri- 
bunal, without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  I  would  have  decided  that  way  or 
not.  I  have  had  many  a  decision  made  against  me  on  questions  of  law  which 
I  did  not  like,  but  I  was  bound  by  them  just  as  much  as  if  I  had  had  a  hand 
in  making  them  and  approved  them.  Did  you  ever  see  a  lawyer  or  a  client 
lose  his  case  that  he  approved  the  decision  of  the  court  ?  They  always  think 
the  decision  unjust  when  it  is  given  against  them.  In  a  government  of  laws, 
like  ours,  we  must  sustain  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  main- 
tain the  rights  of  the  States  as  they  are  guaranteed  under  the  Constitution  ; 
and  then  we  will  have  peace  and  harmony  between  the  different  States  and 
sections  of  this  glorious  Union. 


FOURTH  JOINT  DEBATE,  AT  CHARLESTON. 

September  18,  1858. 

MR.    LINCOLN'S   SPEECH. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  It  will  be  very  difficult  for  an  audience  so  large 
as  this  to  hear  distinctly  what  a  speaker  says,  and  consequently  it  is  important 
that  as  profound  silence  be  preserved  as  possible. 

While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day,  an  elderly  gentleman  called  upon  me  to 
know  whether  I  was  really  in  favor  of  producing  a  perfect  equality  between 
the  negroes  and  white  people.  While  I  had  not  proposed  to  myself  on  this 
occasion  to  say  much  on  that  subject,  yet  as  the  question  was  asked  me,  I 


164  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

thought  I  would  occupy  perhaps  five  minutes  iu  saying  sometliing  in  regard 
to  it.  I  will  say,  then,  that  I  ara  not,  nor  ever  have  heen,  in  favor  of  bringing 
about  in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races ; 
that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes, 
nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white  people  ; 
and  I  will  say,  in  addition  to  this,  that  there  is  a  physical  diff'erence  between 
the  white  and  black  races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races 
living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  political  equality.  And  inasmuch  as 
they  cannot  so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together  there  must  be  the  position 
of  superior  and  inferior,  and  I  as  much  as  any  other  man  am  in  favor  of  hav- 
ing the  superior  position  assigned  to  the  white  race.  I  say  upon  this  occasion 
I  do  not  perceive  that  because  the  white  man  is  to  have  the  superior  position 
the  negro  should  be  denied  everything.  I  do  not  understand  that  because  I 
do  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave  I  must  necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife. 
]\Iy  understanding  is  that  I  can  just  let  her  alone.  1  am  now  in  my  fiftieth 
year,  and  I  certainly  never  have  had  a  black  woman  for  either  a  slave  or  a 
wife.  So  it  seems  to  me  quite  possible  for  us  to  get  along  without  making 
either  slaves  or  wives  of  negroes.  I  will  add  to  this  that  I  have  never  seen, 
to  my  knowledge,  a  man,  woman,  or  child  who  was  in  favor  of  producing  a 
perfect  equality,  social  and  political,  between  negroes  and  white  men.  I  recol- 
lect of  but  one  distinguished  instance  that  I  ever  heard  of  so  frequently  as  to 
be  entirely  satisfied  of  its  correctness,  and  that  is  the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's 
old  friend  Colonel  Eichard  M.  Johnson.  I  will  also  add  to  the  remarks  I  have 
made  (for  I  am  not  going  to  enter  at  large  upon  this  subject),  that  I  have 
never  had  the  least  apprehension  that  I  or  my  friends  would  marry  negroes 
if  there  was  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it ;  but  as  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends  seem  to  be  in  great  apprehension  that  they  might,  if  there  were  no 
law  to  keep  them  from  it,  I  give  him  the  most  solemn  pledge  that  I  will  to 
the  very  last  stand  by  the  law  of  this  State,  which  forbids  the  marrying  of 
white  people  with  negroes.  I  will  add  one  further  word,  which  is  this :  that 
I  do  not  understand  that  there  is  any  place  where  an  alteration  of  the  social 
and  political  relations  of  the  negro  and  the  white  man  can  be  made,  except  in 
the  State  Legislature,  —  not  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States ;  and  as  I 
do  not  really  apprehend  the  approach  of  any  such  thing  myself,  and  as  Judge 
Douglas  seems  to  be  in  constant  horror  that  some  such  danger  is  rapidly 
approaching,  I  propose  as  the  best  means  to  prevent  it  that  the  Judge  be  kept 
at  home,  and  placed  in  the  State  Legislature  to  fight  the  measure.  1  do  not 
propose  dwelling  louger  at  this  time  on  this  subject. 

When  Judge  Trumbull,  our  other  Senator  in  Congress,  returned  to  Illinois 
in  the  month  of  August,  lie  made  a  speech  at  Chicago,  in  which  he  made  M'hat 
may  be  called  a  charge  against  Judge  Douglas,  which  I  understand  proved  to 
be  very  offensive  to  him.  The  Judge  was  at  that  time  out  upon  one  of  his 
speaking  tours  through  the  country,  and  when  the  news  of  it  reached  him,  as 
1  am  informed,  he  denounced  Judge  Trumbull  in  rather  harsh  terms  for  hav- 
ing said  what  he  did  in  regard  to  that  matter.  I  was  travelling  at  that  time, 
and  speaking  at  the  same  places  with  Judge  Douglas  on  subsequent  days ;  and 
when  I  heard  of  what  Judge  Trumbull  had  said  of  Douglas,  and  what  Douglas 
had  said  back  again,  I  felt  that  I  was  in  a  position  where  I  could  not  remain 
entirely  silent  in  regard  to  the  matter.  Consequently,  upon  two  or  three  occa- 
sions 1  alluded  to  it,  and  alluded  to  it  in  no  other  wise  than  to  say  that  in 
regard  to  the  charge  brought  by  Trumbull  against  Douglas,  I  'personally  knew 
nothing,  and  sought  to  say  nothing  about  it ;  that  I  did  personally  know  Judge 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  165 

Trumbull ;  that  I  believed  him  to  be  a  man  of  veracity  ;  that  I  believed  him  to 
be  a  man  of  capacity  suflicient  to  know  very  well  whether  an  assertion  he 
was  making,  as  a  conclusion  drawn  from  a  set  of  facts,  was  true  or  false  ;  and 
as  a  conclusion  of  my  own  from  that,  I  stated  it  as  my  belief,  if  Trumbull 
should  ever  be  called  upon,  he  would  prove  everything  he  had  said.  I  said 
this  upon  two  or  three  occasions.  Upon  a  subsequent  occasion.  Judge  Trum- 
bull spoke  again  before  an  audience  at  Alton,  and  upon  that  occasion  not  only 
repeated  his  charge  against  Douglas,  but  arrayed  the  evidence  he  relied  upon 
to  substantiate  it.  This  speech  was  published  at  length ;  and  subsequently  at 
Jacksonville  Judge  Douglas  alluded  to  the  matter.  In  the  course  of  his  speech, 
and  near  the  close  of  it,  he  stated  in  regard  to  myself  what  I  will  now  read: 
"  Judge  Douglas  proceeded  to  remark  that  he  should  not  hereafter  occupy  his 
time  in  refuting  such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln  having 
indorsed  the  character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him  (Lincoln) 
responsible  for  the  slanders."  I  have  done  simply  what  I  have  told  you,  to 
subject  me  to  this  invitation  to  notice  the  charge.  I  now  wish  to  say  that  it 
had  not  originally  been  my  purpose  to  discuss  that  matter  at  all.  Lut  inas- 
much as  it  seems  to  be  the  wish  of  Judge  Douglas  to  hold  me  responsible  for 
it,  then  for  once  in  my  life  I  will  play  General  Jackson,  and  to  the  just  extent 
I  take  the  responsibility. 

I  wish  to  say  at  the  beginning  that  I  will  hand  to  the  reporters  that  por- 
tion of  Judge  Trumbull's  Alton  speech  which  was  devoted  to  this  matter,  and 
also  that  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  made  at  Jacksonville  in  answer 
to  it.  I  shall  thereby  furnish  tlie  readers  of  this  debate  with  the  complete 
discussion  between  Trumbull  and  Douglas.  I  cannot  now  read  them,  for  the 
reason  that  it  would  take  half  of  my  first  hour  to  do  so.  I  can  only  make 
some  comments  upon  them.  Trumbull's  charge  is  in  the  following  words  : 
"  Now,  the  charge  is,  that  there  was  a  plot  entered  into  to  have  a  Constitution 
formed  for  Kansas,  and  put  in  force,  without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity 
to  vote  upon  it,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  the  plot."  I  will  state,  without 
quoting  further,  for  all  will  have  an  opportunity  of  reading  it  hereafter,  that 
Judge  Trumbull  brings  forward  what  he  regards  as  sufficient  evidence  to  sub- 
stantiate this  charge.^ 

It  will  be  perceived  Judge  Trumbull  shows  that  Senator  Bigier,  upon  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  had  declared  there  had  been  a  conference  among  the 
senators,  in  which  conference  it  was  determined  to  have  an  Enabling  Act 
passed  for  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  under,  and  in  this  con- 
ference it  was  agreed  among  them  that  it  was  best  not  to  have  a  provision  for 
submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people  after  it  should  be  formed. 
He  then  brings  forward  to  show,  and  showing,  as  he  deemed,  that  Judge 
Douglas  reported  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate  with  that  clause  stricken  out. 
He  then  shows  that  there  was  a  new  clause  inserted  into  the  bill,  which  would 
in  its  nature  2y>'C've7it  a  reference  of  the  constitution  back  for  a  vote  of  the 
people,  —  if,  indeed,  upon  a  mere  silence  in  the  law,  it  could  be  assumed  that 
they  had  the  right  to  vote  upon  it.  These  are  the  general  statements  that  be 
lias  made. 

I  propose  to  examine  the  points  in  Judge  Douglas's  speech  in  which  he 
attempts  to  answer  that  speech  of  Judge  Trumbull's.  When  you  come  to 
examine  Judge  Douglas's  speech,  you  will  find  that  the  first  point  he  makes 
is  :  "  Suppose  it  were  true  that  there  was  such  a  change  in  the  bill,  and  that 
I  struck  it  out,  —  is  that  a  proof  of  a  plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  them 

1  See  Trumbull's  speech  at  the  close  of  this  debate. 


166  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

against  their  will  ? "  His  striking  out  such  a  provision,  if  there  was  such  a 
one  in  the  bill,  he  argues,  does  not  establish  the  proof  that  it  was  stricken  out 
for  the  purpose  of  robbing  the  people  of  that  riglit.  I  would  say,  in  the  first 
place,  that  that  would  be  a  most  manifest  reason  for  it.  It  is  true,  as  Judge 
I)ougias  states,  that  many  Territorial  bills  have  passed  without  having  such  a 
provision  in  tlieni.  I  believe  it  is  true,  though  I  am  not  certain,  that  in  some 
instances,  constitutions  framed  under  such  bills  have  been  submitted  to  a  vote 
of  the  people,  with  the  law  silent  upon  the  subject ;  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  they  once  had  their  Enabling  Acts  framed  with  an  express  provision  for 
submitting  the  constitution  to  be  framed  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  then  that 
they  were  stricken  out  when  Congress  did  not  mean  to  alter  the  effect  of  the 
law.  That  there  have  been  bills  which  never  had  the  provision  in,  I  do  not 
question ;  but  when  was  that  provision  taken  out  of  one  that  it  was  in  ? 
More  especially  does  this  evidence  tend  to  prove  the  proposition  that  Trum- 
bull advanced,  when  we  remember  that  the  provision  was  stricken  out  of  the 
bill  almost  simultaneously  with  the  time  that  Bigler  says  there  was  a  con- 
ference among  certain  senators,  and  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  a  bill  should 
be  passed  leaving  that  out.  Judge  Douglas,  in  answering  Trumbull,  omits  to 
attend  to  the  testimony  of  Bigler,  that  there  was  a  meeting  in  whicli  it  was 
agreed  they  should  so  frame  the  bill  that  there  should  be  no  submission  of 
the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  The  Judge  does  not  notice  this  part 
of  it.  If  you  take  this  as  one  piece  of  evidence,  and  then  ascertain  that 
simultaneously  Judge  Douglas  struck  out  a  provision  that  did  require  it  to 
be  submitted,  and  put  the  two  together,  I  think  it  will  make  a  pretty  fair  show 
of  proof  that  Judge  Douglas  did,  as  Trumbull  says,  enter  into  a  plot  to  put  in 
force  a  constitution  for  Kansas  without  giving  the  people  any  opportunity  of 
voting  upon  it. 

But  I  must  hurry  on.  The  next  proposition  that  Judge  Douglas  puts  is  this  : 
"  But  upon  examination  it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs  bill  never  did  contain  a 
clause  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted."  This  is  a  mere  question 
of  fact,  and  can  be  determined  by  evidence.  I  only  want  to  ask  this  question  : 
Why  did  not  Judge  Douglas  say  that  these  words  were  not  stricken  out 
of  the  Toombs  bill,  or  this  bill  from  which  it  is  alleged  the  provision  was 
stricken  out,  —  a  bill  which  goes  by  the  name  of  Toombs,  because  he  origi- 
nall}^  brought  it  forward  ?  I  ask  why,  if  the  Judge  wanted  to  make  a  direct 
issue  with  Trumbull,  did  he  not  take  tlie  exact  proposition  Trumbull  made  in 
his  speech,  and  say  it  was  not  stricken  out  ?  Trumbull  has  given  the  exact 
words  that  he  says  were  in  the  Toombs  bill,  and  he  alleges  that  when  the  bill 
came  back,  they  were  stricken  out.  Judge  Douglas  does  not  say  that  the 
words  which  Trumbull  says  were  stricken  out  were  not  so  stricken  out,  but  he 
says  there  was  no  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill  to  submit  the  constitution  to 
a  vote  of  the  people.  We  see  at  once  that  he  is  merely  making  an  issue  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  words.  He  has  not  undertaken  to  say  that  Trumbull  tells 
a  lie  about  these  words  being  stricken  out,  but  he  is  really,  when  pushed  up  to 
it,  only  taking  an  issue  upon  the  meaning  of  the  words.  Now,  then,  if  there  be 
any  issue  upon  the  meaning  of  the  words,  or  if  there  be  upon  the  question  of 
fact  as  to  whether  these  words  were  stricken  out,  I  have  before  me  what  I  sup- 
pose to  be  a  genuine  copy  of  the  Toombs  bill,  in  which  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  words  Trumbull  says  were  in  it  were,  in  fact,  originally  there.  If  there  be 
any  dispute  upon  the  fact,  I  have  got  the  documents  here  to  show  they  were 
there.  If  there  be  any  controversy  upon  the  sense  of  the  words,  —  whether 
these  words  which  were  stricken  out  really  constituted  a  provision  for  sub- 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  167 

mitting  tlie  matter  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  —  as  that  is  a  matter  of  argument, 
I  think  I  may  as  well  use  Trumbull's  own  argument.  He  says  that  the  propo- 
sition is  in  these  words  :  — 

"  That  the  following  propositions  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  tlie  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  ratified  hy  the  peoiJle  at  the  election 
for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States  and 
the  said  State  of  Kansas." 

Now,  Trumbull  alleges  that  these  last  words  were  stricken  out  of  the  bill 
when  it  came  back,  and  he  says  tliis  was  a  provision  for  submitting  the  consti- 
tution to  a  vote  of  the  people ;  and  his  argument  is  this :  "  Would  it  have 
been  possible  to  ratify  the  land  propositions  at  the  election  for  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution,  unless  such  an  election  was  to  be  held  ?  "  This  is 
Trumbull's  argument.  Now,  Judge  Douglas  does  not  meet  the  charge  at  all, 
but  he  stands  up  and  says  there  was  no  such  proposition  in  that  bill  for  sub- 
mitting the  constitution  to  be  framed  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  Trumbull 
admits  that  the  language  is  not  a  direct  provision  for  submitting  it,  but  it  is  a 
provision  necessarily  implied  from  another  provision.  He  asks  you  how  it  is 
possible  to  ratify  the  land  proposition  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  tlie 
constitution,  if  there  was  no  election  to  be  held  for  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution. And  he  goes  on  to  show  that  it  is  not  any  less  a  law  because  the  pro- 
vision is  put  in  that  indirect  shape  than  it  would  be  if  it  was  put  directly. 
But  I  presume  I  have  said  enough  to  draw  attention  to  this  point,  and  I  pass 
it  by  also. 

Another  one  of  the  points  that  Judge  Douglas  makes  upon  Trumliull,  and 
at  very  great  length,  is,  that  Trumbull,  while  the  bill  was  pending,  said  in  a 
speech  in  the  Senate  that  he  supposed  the  constitution  to  be  made  would  have 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  He  asks,  if  Trumbull  thought  so  then,  what 
ground  is  there  for  anybody  thinking  otherwise  now  ?  Fellow-citizens,  this 
much  may  be  said  in  reply :  That  bill  had  been  in  the  hands  of  a  party  to 
which  Trumbull  did  not  belong.  It  had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  committee, 
at  the  head  of  which  Judge  Douglas  stood.  Trumbull  perhaps  had  a  printed 
copy  of  the  original  Toombs  bill.  I  have  not  the  evidence  on  that  point, 
except  a  sort  of  inference  I  draw  from  the  general  course  of  business  there. 
What  alterations,  or  what  provisions  in  the  way  of  altering,  were  going  on  in 
committee,  Trumbull  had  no  means  of  knowing,  until  the  altered  bill  was 
reported  back.  Soon  afterward,  when  it  was  reported  back,  there  was  a  dis- 
cussion over  it,  and  perhaps  Trumbull  in  reading  it  hastily  in  the  altered  form 
did  not  perceive  all  the  bearings  of  the  alterations.  He  was  hastily  borne 
into  the  debate,  and  it  does  not  follow  that  because  there  was  something  in  it 
Trumbull  did  not  perceive,  that  something  did  not  exist.  More  than  this,  is 
it  true  that  what  Trumbull  did  can  have  any  effect  on  what  Douglas  did  ? 
Suppose  Trumbull  had  been  in  the  plot  with  these  other  men,  would  that  let 
Douglas  out  of  it  ?  Would  it  exonerate  Douglas  that  Trumbull  did  n't  then  per- 
ceive he  was  in  the  plot  ?  He  also  asks  the  question  :  Why  did  n't  Trumbull 
propose  to  amend  the  bill,  if  he  thought  it  needed  any  amendment  ?  Why,  I 
believe  that  everything  Judge  Trumbull  had  proposed,  particularly  in  con- 
nection with  this  question  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  since  he  had  been  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  had  been  promptly  voted  down  by  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
friends.  He  had  no  promise  that  an  amendment  offered  by  him  to  anything 
on  this  subject  would  receive  the  slightest  consideration.    Judge  Trumbull  did 


168  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

bring  to  the  notice  of  the  Senate  at  that  time  the  fact  that  there  was  no  pro- 
vision for  submitting  the  constitution  about  to  be  made  for  the  people  of 
Kansas,  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  I  believe  I  may  venture  to  say  that  Judge 
Douglas  made  some  reply  to  this  speech  of  Judge  Trumbull's,  hut  he  never 
7ioticcd  that  part  of  it  at  all.  And  so  the  thing  passed  by.  I  think,  then,  the 
fact  that  Judge  Trumbull  offered  no  amendment,  does  not  throw  much  blame 
upon  him ;  and  if  it  did,  it  does  not  reach  the  question  of  fact  as  to  what 
Judge  Douglas  taas  doing.  I  repeat,  that  if  Trumbull  had  himself  been  in  the 
plot,  it  would  not  at  all  relieve  the  others  who  were  in  it  from  blame.  If  I 
should  be  indicted  for  murder,  and  upon  the  trial  it  should  be  discovered  that 
I  had  been  implicated  in  that  murder,  but  that  the  prosecuting  witness  was 
guilty  too,  that  would  not  at  all  touch  the  question  of  my  crime.  It  would 
be  no  relief  to  my  neck  that  they  discovered  this  other  man  who  charged  the 
crime  upon  me  to  be  guilty  too. 

Another  one  of  the  points  Judge  Douglas  makes  upon  Judge  Trumbull  is, 
that  when  he  spoke  in  Chicago  he  made  his  charge  to  rest  upon  the  fact  that 
the  bill  had  the  provision  in  it  for  submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the 
people  when  it  went  into  his  (Judge  Douglas's)  hands,  that  it  was  missing 
when  he  reported  it  to  the  Senate,  and  that  in  a  public  speech  he  had  subse- 
quently said  the  alterations  in  the  bill  were  made  while  it  was  in  committee, 
and  that  they  were  made  in  consultation  between  him  (Judge  Douglas)  and 
Toombs.  And  Judge  Douglas  goes  on  to  comment  upon  the  fact  of  Trumbull's 
adducing  in  his  Alton  speech  the  proposition  that  tlie  bill  not  only  came  back 
with  that  proposition  stricken  out,  but  with  another  clause  and  another  pro- 
vision in  it,  saying  that  "  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  Act  there  shall 
be  no  election  in  said  Territory,"  —  which,  Trumbull  argued,  was  not  only 
taking  the  provision  for  submitting  to  a  vote  of  the  people  out  of  the  bill, 
but  was  adding  an  affirmative  one,  in  that  it  prevented  the  people  from  exer- 
cising the  right  under  a  bill  that  was  merely  silent  on  the  question.  Now,  in 
regard  to  what  he  says,  that  Trumbull  sliifts  the  issue,  that  he  shifts  his 
ground,  —  and  I  believe  he  uses  the  term  that,  "  it  being  proven  false,  he  has 
changed  ground,"  —  I  call  upon  all  of  you,  when  you  come  to  examine  that 
portion  of  Trumbull's  speech  (for  it  will  make  a  part  of  mine),  to  examine 
whether  Trumbull  has  shifted  his  ground  or  not.  I  say  he  did  not  shift  his 
ground,  but  that  he  brought  forward  his  original  chars^e  and  the  evidence  to  sus- 

O  ^  O  Oil 

tain  it  yet  more  fully,  but  precisely  as  he  originally  made  it.  Then,  in  addition 
thereto,  he  brought  in  a  new  piece  of  evidence.  He  shifted  no  ground.  He 
brought  no  new  piece  of  evidence  inconsistent  with  his  former  testimony  ;  but 
he  brought  a  new  piece,  tending,  as  he  thought,  and  as  I  think,  to  prove  his  prop- 
osition. To  illustrate :  A  man  brinus  an  accusation  against  another,  and  on 
trial  the  man  making  the  charge  introduces  A  and  B  to  prove  the  accusation. 
At  a  second  trial  he  introduces  the  same  witnesses,  who  tell  the  same  story 
as  before,  and  a  third  witness,  who  tells  the  same  thing,  and  in  addition  gives 
farther  testimony  corroborative  of  the  charge.  So  with  Trumbull.  There  was 
no  shifting  of  ground,  nor  inconsistency  of  testimony  between  the  new  piece 
of  evidence  and  what  he  originally  introduced. 

But  Judge  Douglas  says  that  he  himself  moved  to  strike  out  that  last  pro- 
vision of  the  bill,  and  that  on  his  motion  it  was  stricken  out  and  a  substitute 
inserted.  That  I  presume  is  the  truth.  I  presume  it  is  true  that  that  last 
proposition  was  stricken  out  by  Judge  Douglas.  Trumbull  has  not  said  it  was 
not.  Trumbull  has  himself  said  that  it  was  so  stricken  out.  He  says  :  "  I  am 
speaking  of  the  bill  as  Judge  Douglas  reported   it  back.     It  was  amended 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  169 

somewhat  in  the  Senate  before  it  passed,  but  I  am  speaking  of  it  as  he  brought 
it  back."  Now,  when  Judge  Douglas  parades  the  fact  that  the  provision  was 
stricken  out  of  the  bill  when  it  came  back,  he  asserts  nothing  contrary  to 
what  Trumbull  alleges.  Trumbull  has  only  said  that  he  originally  put  it  in, — 
not  that  he  did  not  strike  it  out.  Trumbull  says  it  was  not  in  the  bill  w^hen 
it  went  to  the  committee.  AVhen  it  came  back  it  was  in,  and  Judsxe  Douolas 
said  the  alterations  w^ere  made  by  him  in  consultation  wnth  Toombs.  Trumbull 
alleges,  therefore,  as  his  conclusion,  that  Judge  Douglas  put  it  in.  Then,  if 
Douglas  wants  to  contradict  Trumbull  and  call  him  a  liar,  let  him  say  he  did 
not  put  it  in,  and  not  that  he  did  n't  take  it  out  again.  It  is  said  that  a  bear 
is  sometimes  hard  enough  pushed  to  drop  a  cub ;  and  so  I  presume  it  was  in 
this  case.  I  presume  the  truth  is  that  Douglas  put  it  in,  and  afterward  took 
it  out.  That  I  take  it  is  the  truth  about  it.  Judge  Trumbull  says  one  thing, 
Douglas  says  another  thing,  and  the  two  don't  contradict  one  another  at  all. 
The  question  is,  What  did  he  put  it  in  for  ?  In  the  first  place,  wdiat  did  he 
take  the  other  provision  out  of  the  bill  for,  —  the  provision  which  Trumbull 
argued  was  necessary  for  submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people  ? 
What  did  he  take  that  out  for ;  and,  having  taken  it  out,  what  did  he  put  this 
in  for  ?  I  say  that  in  the  run  of  things,  it  is  not  unlikely  forces  conspire  to 
render  it  vastly  expedient  for  Judge  Douglas  to  take  that  latter  clause  out 
again.  The  question  that  Trumbull  has  made  is  that  Judge  Douglas  put  it  in  ; 
and  he  don't  meet  Trumbull  at  all  unless  he  denies  that. 

In  the  clause  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  upon  this  subject  he  uses  tliis 
language  toward  Judge  Trumbull.  He  says :  "  He  forges  his  evidence  from 
beginning  to  end ;  and  by  falsifying  the  record,  he  endeavors  to  bolster  up  his 
false  charge."  Well,  that  is  a  pretty  serious  statement.  Trumbull  forges  his 
evidence  from  beginning  to  end.  Now,  upon  my  own  authority  I  say  that  it 
is  not  true.  What  is  a  forgery  ?  Consider  the  evidence  that  Trumbull  has 
brought  forward.  When  you  come  to  read  the  speech,  as  you  will  be  able  to, 
examine  whether  the  evidence  is  a  forgery  from  beginning  to  end.  He  had 
the  bill  or  document  in  his  hand  like  that  [holding  up  a  paper].  He  says  that 
is  a  copy  of  the  Toombs  bill,  —  the  amendment  offered  by  Toombs.  He  says 
that  is  a  copy  of  the  bill  as  it  was  introduced  and  went  into  Judge  Douglas's 
hands.  Now,  does  Judge  Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery  ?  That  is  one  thing 
Trumbull  brought  forward.  Judge  Douglas  says  he  forged  it  from  beginning 
to  end  !  That  is  the  "  beginning,"  we  will  say.  Does  Douglas  say  that  is  a 
forgery  ?  Let  him  say  it  to-day,  and  we  will  have  a  subsequent  examination 
upon  this  subject.  Trumbull  then  holds  up  another  document  like  this,  and 
says  that  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  bill  as  it  came  back  in  the  amended  form 
out  of  Judge  Douglas's  hands.  Does  Judge  Douglas  say  that  is  a  forgery  ? 
Does  he  say  it  in  his  general  sweeping  charge  ?  Does  he  say  so  now  ?  If  he 
does  not,  then  take  this  Toombs  bill  and  the  bill  in  the  amended  form,  and  it 
only  needs  to  compare  them  to  see  that  the  provision  is  in  the  one  and  not  in 
the  other ;  it  leaves  the  inference  inevitable  that  it  was  taken  out. 

But  while  I  am  dealing  with  this  question,  let  us  see  what  Trumbull's 
other  evidence  is.  One  other  piece  of  evidence  I  will  read.  Trumbull  says 
there  are  in  this  original  Toombs  bill  these  words  :  "  That  the  following  propo- 
sitions be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said  Convention  of  the 
people  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejection ;  which, 
if  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States 
and  the  said  State  of  Kansas."     Now,  if  it  is  said  that  this  is  a  forgery,  we 

22 


170  DEBATES    BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

will  open  the  paper  here  and  see  whether  it  is  or  uot.  Agaiu,  Trumbull  says, 
as  he  goes  along,  that  Mr.  Bigler  made  the  following  statement  in  his  place  in 
the  Senate,  December  9,  1857  :  — 

"  I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by  senators  before  the  bill  was 
introduced,  and  the  question  Avas  raised  and  discussed,  whether  tlie  constitution,  when 
formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  It  was  held  by  those  most  in- 
telligent on  the  subject  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding  that  Territory, 
the  danger  of  any  experiment  at  that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it  would  be  better  there 
should  be  no  such  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill ;  and  it  was  my  understanding,  in 
all  the  intercourse  I  had,  that  the  Convention  would  make  a  constitution,  and  send  it 
here,  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular  vote." 

Then  Trumbull  follows  on  :  — 

"  In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  21st  December,  1857  ["  Congressional 
Globe,"  same  vol.,  page  113],  Senator  Bigler  said  :  — 

"  '  Xothing  was  further  from  my  mind  than  to  allude  to  any  social  or  confidential 
interview.  The  meeting  was  not  of  that  character.  Indeed,  it  was  semi-official,  and 
called  to  promote  the  public  good.  My  recollection  was  clear  that  I  left  the  confer- 
ence under  the  impression  that  it  had  been  deemed  best  to  adopt  measures  to  admit 
Kansas  as  a  State  through  the  agency  of  one  popular  election,  and  that  for  delegates 
to  this  Convention.  This  impression  was  stronger  because  I  thouglit  the  spirit  of  the 
bill  infringed  upon  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  to  which  I  had  great  aversion  ; 
but  with  the  hope  of  accomplishing  a  great  good,  and  as  no  movement  had  been  made 
in  that  direction  in  the  Territory,  I  waived  this  objection,  and  concluded  to  support 
the  measure.  I  have  a  few  items  of  testimony  as  to  the  correctness  of  these  impres- 
sions, and  with  their  submission  I  shall  be  content.  I  have  before  me  the  bill 
reported  by  the  senator  from  Illinois  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856,  providing  for  the 
admission  of  Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third  section  of  which  reads  as  follows  :  — 

"  '  "  That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election 
for  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States  and 
the  said  State  of  Kansas." 

"  '  The  bin  read  in  his  place  by  the  senator  from  Georgia  on  the  25th  of  June,  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  contained  the  same  section  word  for  word. 
Both  these  bills  were  under  consideration  at  the  conference  referred  to ;  but,  sir,  when 
the  senator  from  Illinois  reported  the  Toombs  bill  to  the  Senate  with  amendments, 
the  next  morning,  it  did  not  contain  that  portion  of  the  third  section  Avhich  indicated 
to  the  Convention  that  the  constitution  should  be  approved  by  the  people.  The 
words,  "  and  ratified  hy  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution" 
had  been  stricken  out.'  " 

!N"ow,  these  things  Trumbull  says  were  stated  by  Bigler  upon  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  on  certain  days,  and  that  they  are  recorded  in  the  "  Congressional 
Globe  "  on  certain  pages.  Does  Judge  Douglas  say  this  is  a  forgery  ?  Does 
he  say  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  "  Congressional  Globe  "  ?  "What  does  he 
mean  when  he  says  Judge  Trumbull  forges  his  evidence  from  beginning  to 
end  ?  So  again  he  says  in  another  place,  that  Judge  Douglas,  in  his  speech, 
December  9,  1857  ("  Congressional  Globe,"  part  I.  page  15),  stated':  — 

"  That  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  I  [Mr.  Douglas]  reported  a  bill  from 
the  Committee  on  Territories,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and  form 
a  constitution  for  themselves.  Subsequently  the  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs] 
brought  forward  a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after  having  been  modified  hy  him  and 
myself  in  consultation,  was  passed  by  the  Senate." 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS,  171 

Now,  Trumbull  says  this  is  a  quotation  from  a  speech  of  Douglas,  and  is 
recorded  in  tlie  "  Congressional  Globe."  Is  it  a  forgery  ?  Is  it  there  or  not  ? 
It  may  not  be  there,  but  I  want  the  Judge  to  take  these  pieces  of  evidence, 
and  distinctly  say  they  are  forgeries  if  he  dare  do  it. 

A  voice  :   He  will. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Well,  sir,  you  had  better  not  commit  him.  He  gives  other 
quotations,  —  another  from  Judge  Douglas.     He  says  :  — 

"  I  will  ask  the  senator  to  show  me  an  intimation,  from  any  one  member  of  the 
Senate,  in  the  whole  debate  on  the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union,  from  any  quarter, 
that  the  constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  I  will  venture  to  say 
that  on  all  sides  of  the  chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If  the  opponents 
of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not,  they  would  have  made  the  point  on  it ;  and  if 
they  had  made  it,  we  should  certaiidy  have  yielded  to  it,  and  put  in  the  clause.  That 
is  a  discovery  made  since  the  President  found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  that  would  be  done,  which  ought  in  fairness  to  have  been  done." 

Judge  Trumbull  says  Douglas  made  that  speech,  and  it  is  recorded.  Does 
Judge  Douglas  say  it  is  a  forgery,  and  was  not  true  ?  Trumbull  says  somewhere, 
and  I  propose  to  skip  it,  but  it  will  be  found  by  any  one  who  will  read  this 
debate,  that  he  did  distinctly  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  those  who  were  engi- 
neering the  bill,  that  it  lacked  that  provision ;  and  then  he  goes  on  to  give 
another  quotation  from  Judge  Douglas,  where  Judge  Trumbull  uses  this 
language  :  — 

"Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same  day  and  in  the  same  debate,  probably 
recollecting  or  being  reminded  of  the  fiict  that  I  had  objected  to  the  Toombs  bill  when 
pending  that  it  did  not  provide  for  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people, 
made  another  statement,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same  volume  of  the  'Globe,' 
page  22,  in  which  he  says  :  — 

"  '  That  the  bill  was  silent  on  this  subject  was  true,  and  my  attention  was  called 
to  that  about  the  time  it  was  passed  ;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that 
powers  not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of  course  the  constitution  would  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people.' 

"  Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  statement  just  before  made,  that 
had  the  point  been  made  it  would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a  new  dis- 
covery, you  will  determine." 

So  I  say.  I  do  not  know  whether  Judge  Douglas  will  dispute  this,  and 
yet  maintain  his  position  that  Trumbull's  evidence  "  was  forged  from  begin- 
ning to  end."  I  will  remark  that  I  have  not  got  these  "  Congressional  Globes  " 
with  me.  They  are  large  books,  and  difficult  to  carry  about,  and  if  Judge 
Douglas  shall  say  that  on  these  points  where  Trumbull  has  quoted  from  them 
tliere  are  no  such  passages  there,  I  shall  not  be  able  to  prove  they  are  there 
upon  this  occasion,  but  I  will  have  another  chance.  Whenever  he  points  out 
the  forgery  and  says,  "  I  declare  that  this  particular  thing  which  Trumbull  has 
uttered  is  not  to  be  found  where  he  says  it  is,"  then  my  attention  will  be 
drawn  to  tliat,  and  I  will  arm  myself  for  the  contest,  —  stating  now  that  I 
have  not  tlie  slightest  doubt  on  earth  that  I  will  find  every  quotation  just 
where  Trumbull  says  it  is.  Then  the  question  is,  How  can  Douglas  call  that 
a  forgery  ?  How  can  he  make  out  that  it  is  a  forgery  ?  What  is  a  forgery  ? 
It  is  the  bringing  forward  something  in  writing  or  in  print  purporting  to  be 
of  certain  effect  when  it  is  altogether  untrue.  If  you  come  forward  with  my 
note  for  one  hundred  dollars  when  I  have  never  given  such  a  note,  there  is  a 


172  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

forgery.  If  you  come  forward  with  a  letter  purporting  to  be  Avritten  by  me 
which  I  never  wrote,  there  is  another  forgery.  If  you  produce  anything  in 
writing  or  in  print  saying  it  is  so  and  so,  the  document  not  being  genuine, 
a  forgery  has  been  committed.  How  do  you  make  this  a  forgery  when  every 
piece  of  the  evidence  is  genuine  ?  If  Judge  Douglas  does  say  tliese  docu- 
ments and  quotations  are  false  and  forged,  he  has  a  full  right  to  do  so  ;  but 
until  he  does  it  specitically  we  don't  know  how  to  get  at  him.  If  he  does  say 
they  are  false  and  forged,  I  will  then  look  further  into  it,  and  I  presume  I  can 
procure  the  certificates  of  the  proper  ofUcers  that  they  are  genuine  copies. 
I  have  no  doubt  each  of  these  extracts  will  be  found  exactly  wliere  Trumbull 
says  it  is.  Then  I  leave  it  to  you  if  Judge  Douglas,  in  making  his  sweeping 
charoe  that  Judge  Trumbull's  evidence  is  forged  from  beginning  to  end,  at  all 
meets  the  case,  —  if  that  is  the  way  to  get  at  the  facts.  I  repeat  again,  if  he 
will  point  out  which  one  is  a  forgery,  I  will  carefully  examine  it,  and  if  it 
proves  that  any  one  of  them  is  really  a  forgery,  it  will  not  be  me  who  will 
hold  to  it  any  longer.  I  have  always  wanted  to  deal  with  every  one  I  meet, 
candidly  and  honestly.  If  I  have  made  any  assertion  not  warranted  by  facts, 
and  it  is  pointed  out  to  me,  I  will  withdraw  it  cheerfully.  But  I  do  not 
choose  to  see  Judge  Trumbull  calumniated,  and  tlje  evidence  he  has  brought 
forward  branded  in  general  terms,  "a  forgery  from  beginning  to  end."  This  is 
not  the  legal  way  of  meeting  a  charge,  and  I  submit  to  all  intelligent  persons 
both  friends  of  Judge  Douglas  and  of  myself,  whether  it  is. 

The  point  upon  Judge  Douglas  is  this.  The  bill  that  went  into  his  hands 
had  the  provision  in  it  for  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people  ;  and 
I  say  its  language  amounts  to  an  express  provision  for  a  submission,  and  that 
he  took  the  provision  out.  He  says  it  was  known  that  the  bill  was  silent  in 
this  particular ;  hut  I  say,  Judge  Douglas,  it  was  not  silent  when  you  got  it.  It 
was  vocal  with  the  declaration,  when  you  got  it,  for  a  submission  of  the  con- 
stitution to  the  people.  And  now,  my  direct  question  to  Judge  Douglas  is,  to 
answer  why,  if  he  deemed  the  bill  silent  on  this  point,  he  found  it  necessary 
to  strike  out  those  particular  harmless  words.  If  he  had  found  the  bill  silent 
and  without  this  provision,  he  might  say  what  he  does  now.  If  he  supposes 
it  was  implied  that  the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
people,  how  could  these  two  lines  so  encumber  the  statute  as  to  make  it 
necessary  to  strike  them  out  ?  How  could  he  infer  that  a  submission  was 
still  implied,  after  its  express  provision  had  been  stricken  from  the  bill  ?  I 
find  the  bill  vocal  with  the  provision,  while  he  silenced  it.  He  took  it  out, 
and  although  he  took  out  the  other  provision  preventing  a  submission  to  a 
vote  of  the  people,  I  ask,  WJty  did  you  first  jiut  it  in .?  I  ask  him  whether 
he  took  the  original  provision  out,  which  Trumbull  alleges  was  in  the  bill? 
If  he  admits  that  he  did  take  it,  I  ash  him  n-Jiat  he  did  it  for  ?  It  looks  to  us 
as  if  he  had  altered  the  bill.  If  it  looks  differently  to  him,  —  if  he  has  a 
different  reason  for  his  action  from  the  one  we  assign  bim  —  he  can  tell  it. 
I  insist  upon  knowing  why  he  made  the  bill  silent  upon  that  point  when  it 
was  vocal  before  he  put  his  hands  upon  it. 

I  was  told,  before  my  last  paragraph,  that  my  time  was  within  three 
minutes  of  being  out.     I  presume  it  is  expired  now  ;  I  therefore  close. 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  17B 


SENATOR   DOUGLAS'S   SPEECH. 

Ladies  axd  Gentlemen  :  I  had  supposed  that  we  assembled  here  to-day 
for  the  purpose  of  a  joiut  discussiou  between  Mr.  Lincohi  and  myself  upon 
the  political  questions  that  now  agitate  the  whole  country.  The  rule  of  such 
discussions  is,  that  the  opening  speaker  shall  touch  upon  all  the  points  he 
intends  to  discuss,  in  order  that  his  opponent,  in  reply,  shall  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  answering  them.  Let  me  ask  you  what  questions  of  public  policy, 
relatino-  to  the  welfare  of  this  State  or  the  Union,  has  IMr.  Lincoln  discussed 
before  you  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  simply  contented  himself  at  the  outset  by  sayiug 
that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  social  and  political  equality  between  the  white 
man  and  the  negro,  and  did  not  desire  the  law  so  clianged  as  to  make  the 
latter  voters  or  eligible  to  office.  I  am  <>lad  that  I  have  at  last  succeeded  in 
getting  an  answer  out  of  him  upon  this  question  of  negro  citizenship  and 
eligibility  to  office,  for  I  have  been  trying  to  bring  him  to  the  point  on  it  ever 
since  this  canvass  commenced. 

I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  question  which  Mr.  Lincoln  has 
occupied  his  entire  time  in  discussing.  He  spent  his  whole  hour  in  retailing 
a  charge  made  by  Senator  Trumbull  against  me.  The  circumstances  out  of 
M'hich  that  charge  was  manufactured  occurred  prior  to  the  last  Presidential 
election,  over  two  years  ago.  If  the  charge  was  true,  why  did  not  Trumbull 
make  it  in  1856,  when  I  was  discussing  the  questions  of  that  day  all  over  this 
State  with  Lincoln  and  him,  and  when  it  was  pertinent  to  the  then  issue  ? 
He  was  then  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject.  If  that  charge  was  true, 
the  time  to  have  brought  it  forward  was  the  canvass  of  1856,  the  year  wlien 
the  Toombs  bill  passed  the  Senate.  When  the  facts  were  fresh  in  the  public 
mind,  when  the  Kansas  question  was  the  paramount  question  of  the  day,  and 
when  such  a  charge  would  have  had  a  material  bearing  on  the  election,  whv 
did  he  and  Lincoln  remain  silent  then,  knowino-  that  such  a  chariie  could  be 
made  and  proven  if  true  ?  Were  they  not  false  to  you  and  false  to  the  country 
in  going  through  that  entire  campaign,  concealing  their  knowledge  of  this 
enormous  conspiracy  which,  Mr.  Trumbull  says,  he  then  knew  and  would  not 
tell  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  intimates,  in  his  speech,  a  good  reason  why  Mr.  Trumbull 
would  not  tell,  for  he  says  that  it  might  be  true,  as  I  proved  that  it  was  at 
Jacksonville,  that  Trumbull  was  also  in  the  plot,  yet  that  the  fact  of  Trum- 
bull's being  in  the  plot  would  not  in  any  way  relieve  me.  He  illustrates  this 
argument  by  supposing  himself  on  trial  for  murder,  and  says  that  it  would  be 
no  extenuating  circumstance  if,  on  his  trial,  another  man  was  found  to  be  a 
party  to  his  crime.  Well,  if  Trumbull  was  in  the  plot,  and  concealed  it  in 
order  to  escape  the  odium  which  would  have  fallen  upon  himself,  I  ask  you 
whether  you  can  believe  him  now  when  he  turns  State's  evidence,  and  avows 
his  own  infamy  in  order  to  implicate  me.  I  am  amazed  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
sliould  now  come  forward  and  indorse  that  charge,  occupying  his  whole  hour 
in  reading  Mr.  Trumbull's  speech  in  support  of  it.  Why,  I  ask,  does  not  Mr. 
Lincoln  make  a  speech  of  his  own  instead  of  taking  up  his  time  reading 
Trumbull's  speech  at  Alton  ?  I  supposed  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  capable  of 
making  a  public  speech  on  his  own  account,  or  I  should  not  have  accepted  the 
banter  from  him  for  a  joint  discussion.  ["How  about  the  charges?"]  Do 
not  trouble  yourselves,  I  am  going  to  make  my  speech  in  my  own  way,  and  I 
trust,  as  the  IJemocrats  listened  patiently  and  respectfully  to  Mr.  Lincoln, 
that  his  friends  will  not  interrupt  me  when  I  am  answering  him.  When  Mr. 
Trumbull  returned  from  the  East,  the  first  thing  he  did  when  he  landed  at 


174  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Chicago  was  to  make  a  speech  wholly  devoted  to  assaults  upon  my  public 
character  and  public  action.  Up  to  that  time  I  had  never  alluded  to  his 
course  in  Congress,  or  to  him  directly  or  indirectly,  and  hence  his  assaults  upon 
me  were  entirely  without  provocation  and  without  excuse.  Since  then  he  has 
been  travelling  from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other,  repeating  his  vile 
charge.     I  propose  now  to  read  it  in  his  own  language  :  — 

"  Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge  that  there  was  a  preconcerted 
arrangement  and  plot  entered  into  by  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit  for  oppos- 
ing a  constitution  formed  and  put  in  force  without  giving  the  people  any  opportunity 
to  pass  upon  it.  This,  my  friends,  is  a  serious  charge,  but  I  charge  it  to-night 
tliat  the  very  men  who  traverse  the  country  imder  banners  proclaiming  popular 
sovereignty,  by  design  concocted  a  bill  on  purpose  to  force  a  constitution  upon  that 
people." 

In  answer  to  some  one  in  the  crowd  who  asked  him  a  question,  Trumbull 
said :  — 

"  And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in  the  plot  to  force  a  constitution 
upon  that  peopled  I  will  satisfy  you.  I  will  cram  the  truth  down  any  honest  man's 
throat  until  he  cannot  deny  it.  And  to  the  man  who  does  deny  it,  I  will  cram  the 
lie  down  his  throat  till  he  shall  cry  enough. 

"  It  is  preposterous  ;  it  is  the  most  damnable  effrontery  that  man  ever  put  on,  to 
conceal  a  scheme  to  defraud  and  cheat  the  people  out  of  their  rights,  and  then-  claim 
credit  for  it." 

That  is  the  polite  language  Senator  Trumbull  applied  to  me,  his  colleague, 
when  I  was  two  hundred  miles  off.  Why  did  he  not  speak  out  as  boldly  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  cram  the  lie  down  my  throat  when  I 
denied  the  charge,  first  made  by  Bigler,  and  made  him  take  it  back  ?  You 
all  recollect  how  Bigler  assaulted  me  when  I  was  engaged  in  a  hand-to-hand 
fight,  resisting  a  scheme  to  force  a  constitution  on  the  people  of  Kansas  against 
their  will.  He  then  attacked  me  with  this  charge ;  but  I  proved  its  utter 
falsity,  nailed  the  slander  to  the  counter,  and  made  him  take  the  back  track. 
There  is  not  an  honest  man  in  America  who  read  that  debate  who  will  pre- 
tend that  the  charge  is  true.  Trumbull  was  then  present  in  the  Senate,  face 
to  face  with  me ;  and  why  did  he  not  then  rise  and  repeat  the  charge,  and  say 
he  would  cram  the  lie  down  my  throat  ?  I  tell  you  that  Trumbull  then  knew 
it  was  a  lie.  He  knew  that  Toombs  denied  that  there  ever  was  a  clause  in 
the  bill  he  brought  forward,  calling  for  and  requiring  a  submission  of  the 
Kansas  Constitution  to  the  people.  I  will  tell  you  what  the  facts  of  the  case 
were.  I  introduced  a  bill  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  consti- 
tution, and  come  into  the  Union  as  a  State  whenever  they  should  have  the 
requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  and  Mr.  Toombs  proposed  a 
substitute,  authorizing  the  people  of  Kansas,  with  their  then  population  of 
only  25,000,  to  form  a  constitution,  and  come  in  at  once.  The  question  at 
issue  was,  whether  we  would  admit  Kansas  with  a  population  of  25,000,  or, 
make  her  wait  until  she  had  the  ratio  entitling  her  to  a  representative  in  Con- 
gress, which  was  93,420.  That  was  the  point  of  dispute  in  the  Committee  of 
Territories,  to  which  both  my  bill  and  Mr.  Toombs's  substitute  had  been 
referred.  I  was  overruled  by  a  majority  of  the  committee,  my  proposition 
rejected,  and  Mr.  Toombs's  proposition  to  admit  Kansas  then,  with  her  popu- 
lation of  25,000,  adopted.  Accordingly,  a  bill  to  carry  out  his  idea  of  immedi- 
ate admission  was  reported  as  a  substitute  for  mine :  the  only  points  at  issue 


AND   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS.  175 

being,  as  I  have  already  said,  the  question  of  population,  and  the  adoption  of 
safeguards  against  frauds  at  tlie  election.  Trumbull  knew  this, — the  whole 
Senate  knew  it,  —  and  hence  he  was  silent  at  that  time.  He  waited  until  I 
became  engaged  in  this  canvass,  and  finding  that  I  was  showing  up  Lincoln's 
Abolitionism  and  negro  equality  doctrines,  that  I  was  driving  Lincoln  to  the 
wall,  and  white  men  would  not  support  his  rank  Abolitionism,  he  came  back 
from  the  East  and  trumped  up  a  system  of  charges  against  me,  hoping  that  I 
would  be  compelled  to  occupy  my  entire  time  in  defending  myself,  so  that  I 
would  not  be  able  to  show  up  the  enormity  of  the  principles  of  the  Abolition- 
ists. Now,  the  only  reason,  and  the  true  reason,  why  Mr.  Lincoln  has  occu- 
pied the  whole  of  his  first  hour  in  this  issue  between  Trumbull  and  myself,  is, 
to  conceal  from  this  vast  audience  the  real  questions  which  divide  the  two 
great  parties. 

I  am  not  going  to  allow  them  to  waste  much  of  my  time  with  these  per- 
sonal matters.  I  have  lived  in  this  State  twenty-five  years,  most  of  that  time 
have  been  in  public  life,  and  my  record  is  open  to  you  all.  If  that  record  is 
not  enough  to  vindicate  me  from  these  petty,  malicious  assaults,  I  despise  ever 
to  be  elected  to  office  by  slandering  my  opponents  and  traducing  other  men. 
Mr.  Lincoln  asks  you  to  elect  him  to  the  United  States  Senate  to-day  solely 
because  he  and  Trumbull  can  slander  me.  Has  he  given  any  other  reason  ? 
Has  he  avowed  what  he  was  desirous  to  do  in  Congress  on  any  one  question  ? 
He  desires  to  ride  into  office,  not  upon  his  own  merits,  not  upon  the  merits 
and  soundness  of  his  principles,  but  upon  his  success  in  fastening  a  stale  old 
slander  upon  me. 

I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  up  to  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  the 
Toombs  bill,  and  after  its  introduction,  there  had  never  been  an  Act  of  Con- 
gress for  the  admission  of  a  new  State  which  contained  a  clause  requiring  its 
constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  The  general  rule  made  the  law 
silent  on  the  subject,  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  people  would  demand  and 
compel  a  popular  vote  on  the  ratification  of  their  constitution.  Such  was  the 
general  rule  under  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  and  Polk,  under 
the  Whig  Presidents  and  the  Democratic  Presidents,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
government  down,  and  nobody  dreamed  that  an  effort  would  ever  be  made  to 
abuse  the  power  thus  confided  to  the  people  of  a  Territory.  For  this  reason 
our  attention  was  not  called  to  the  fact  of  whether  there  was  or  was  not  a  clause 
in  the  Toombs  bill  compelling  submission,  but  it  was  taken  for  granted  that 
the  constitution  would  be  submitted  to  the  people  whether  the  law  compelled 
it  or  not. 

Now,  I  will  read  from  the  report  by  me  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories  at  the  time  I  reported  back  the  Toombs  substitute  to  the  Senate. 
It  contained  several  things  which  I  had  voted  against  in  committee,  but  had 
been  overruled  by  a  majority  of  the  members,  and  it  was  my  duty  as  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  to  report  the  bill  back  as  it  was  agreed  upon  by  them. 
The  main  point  upon  which  I  had  been  overruled  was  the  question  of  popu- 
lation.    In  my  report  accompanying  the  Toombs  bill,  I  said :  — 

"  In  the  opinion  of  your  Committee,  whenever  a  constitution  shall  be  formed 
in  any  Territory,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  justice,  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our  republican  system,  imperatively 
demand  that  the  voice  of  the  people  shall  be  fsiirly  expressed,  and  their  will  embodied 
in  that  fundamental  law,  without  fraud,  or  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any  other 
improper  or  uidawful  influence,  and  subject  to  no  other  restrictions  than  those  im- 
posed by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 


176  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

There  you  find  that  we  took  it  for  granted  that  the  constitution  was  to  be 
submitted  to  the  people,  whether  the  bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  or  not. 
Suppose  I  had  reported  it  so,  following  the  example  of  Washington,  Adams, 
Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Adams,  Jackson,  Van  Buren,  Harrison,  Tyler, 
Polk,  Taylor,  Fillmoi'e,  and  Pierce,  would  that  fact  have  been  evidence  of  a 
conspiracy  to  force  a  constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will  ? 
If  the  charge  whicli  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  be  true  against  me,  it  is  true  against 
Zachary  Taylor,  IMillard  Fillmore,  and  every  Wliig  President,  as  well  as  every 
Democratic  President,  and  against  Henry  Clay,  who,  in  the  Senate  or  House, 
for  forty  years  advocated  bills  similar  to  tlie  one  I  reported,  no  one  of  them  con- 
taining a  clause  compelling  the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people. 
Are  Mr.  Lincoln  and  JMr.  Trumbull  prepared  to  charge  upon  all  those  eminent 
men  from  the  beginning  of  the  government  down  to  the  present  day,  that  the 
absence  of  a  provision  compelling  submission,  in  the  various  bills  passed  by 
them,  authorizing  the  people  of  Territories  to  form  State  constitutions,  is 
evidence  of  a  corrupt  design  on  their  part  to  force  a  constitution  upon  an 
unwilling  people  ? 

I  ask  you  to  reflect  on  these  things,  for  I  tell  you  that  there  is  a  conspiracy 
to  carry  this  election  for  the  Black  Eepublicans  by  slander,  and  not  by  fair 
means.  Mr.  Lincoln's  speech  this  day  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact.  He 
has  devoted  his  entire  time  to  an  issue  between  Mr.  Trumbull  and  myself, 
and  has  not  uttered  a  word  about  the  politics  of  the  day.  Are  you  going  to 
elect  Mr.  Trumbull's  colleague  upon  an  issue  between  Mr.  Trumbull  and  me  ? 
I  thought  I  was  running  against  Abraham  Lincoln,  that  he  claimed  to  be  my 
opponent,  had  challenged  me  to  a  discussion  of  the  public  questions  of  the  day 
with  him,  and  was  discussing  these  questions  with  me ;  but  it  turns  out  that 
his  only  hope  is  to  ride  into  office  on  Trumbull's  back,  who  will  carry  him  by 
falsehood. 

Permit  me  to  pursue  this  subject  a  little  further.  An  examination  of  the 
record  proves  that  Trumbull's  charge  —  that  the  Toombs  bill  originally  con- 
tained a  clause  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  —  is 
false.  The  printed  copy  of  the  bill  which  Mr.  Lincoln  held  up  before  you, 
and  which  he  pretends  contains  such  a  clause,  merely  contains  a  clause 
requiring  a  submission  of  the  land  grant,  and  there  is  no  clause  in  it  requiring 
a  submission  of  the  constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  find  such  a  clause  in  it. 
My  report  shows  that  we  took  it  for  granted  that  the  people  would  require  a 
submission  of  the  constitution,  and  secure  it  for  themselves.  There  never 
was  a  clause  in  the  Toombs  bill  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted  ; 
Trumbull  knew  it  at  the  time,  and  his  speech  made  on  the  night  of  its  pas- 
sage discloses  the  fact  that  he  knew  it  was  silent  on  the  subject.  Lincoln 
pretends,  and  tells  you,  that  Trumbull  has  not  changed  his  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  his  charge  since  he  made  his  speech  in  Chicago.  Let  us  see.  The 
Chicago  "  Times  "  took  up  Trumbull's  Chicago  speech,  compared  it  with  the 
official  records  of  Congress,  and  proved  that  speech  to  be  false  in  its  charge 
that  the  original  Toombs  bill  required  a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the 
people.  Trumbull  then  saw  that  he  was  caught,  and  his  falsehood  exposed, 
and  he  went  to  Alton,  and,  under  the  very  walls  of  the  penitentiary,  made  a 
new  speech,  in  which  he  predicated  his  assault  upon  me  in  the  allegation  that 
I  had  caused  to  be  voted  into  the  Toombs  bill  a  clause  which  prohibited  the 
Convention  from  submitting  the  constitution  to  the  people,  and  quoted  what 
he  pretended  was  the  clause.  Now,  has  not  Mr.  Trumbull  entirely  changed 
the  evidence  on  which  he  bases  his  charge  ?     The  clause  which  he  quoted  in 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  177 

his  Alton  speech  (which  he  has  published  and  circulated  broadcast  over  the 
State)  as  having  been  put  into  the  Toombs  bill  by  nie,  is  in  the  following 
words  :  "  And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  Act,  no  other  election 
shall  be  held  in  said  Territory." 

Trumbull  says  that  the  object  of  that  amendment  was  to  prevent  the  Con- 
vention from  submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 

Now,  I  will  show  you  that  when  Trumbull  made  that  statement  at  Alton 
he  knew  it  to  be  untrue.  I  read  from  Trumbull's  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the 
Toombs  bill  on  the  night  of  its  passage.     He  then  said  :  — 

"  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  about  submitting 
the  constitution,  which  is  to  he  formed,  to  the  people  for  their  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  the  Convention  will  have  the  right  to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper, 
but  it  is  certainly  not  compelled  to  do  so,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill." 

Thus  you  see  that  Trumbull,  when  the  bill  was  on  its  passage  in  the 
Senate,  said  that  it  was  silent  on  the  subject  of  submission,  and  that  there 
was  nothing  in  the  bill  one  way  or  the  other  on  it.  In  his  Alton  speech  he 
says  there  was  a  clause  in  the  bill  preventing  its  submission  to  the  people, 
and  that  I  had  it  voted  in  as  an  amendment.  Thus  I  convict  him  of  false- 
hood and  slander  by  quoting  from  him,  on  the  passage  of  the  Toombs  bill  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  his  own  speech,  made  on  the  night  of  July  2, 
1856,  and  reported  in  the  "  Congressional  Globe  "  for  the  first  session  of  the 
thirty-fourth  Congress,  vol.  33.  What  will  you  think  of  a  man  who  makes  a 
false  charge,  and  falsifies  the  records  to  prove  it  ?  I  will  now  show  you  that 
the  clause  which  Trumbull  says  was  put  in  the  bill  on  my  motion  was  never 
put  in  at  all  by  me,  but  was  stricken  out  on  my  motion,  and  another  substi- 
tuted in  its  place.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  same  volume  of  the  "  Con- 
gressional Globe  "  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  page  795,  where  you  will 
find  the  following  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  :  — 

^'  Mr.  Douglas  :  I  have  an  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories. On  page  8,  section  11,  strike  out  the  words  'until  the  complete  execution  of 
this  Act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory/  and  insert  the  amendment 
which  I  hold  in  my  hand." 

You  see  from  this  that  I  moved  to  strike  out  the  very  words  that  Trum- 
bull says  I  put  in.  The  Committee  on  Territories  overruled  me  in  committee, 
and  put  the  clause  in ;  but  as  soon  as  I  got  the  bill  back  into  the  Senate,  I 
moved  to  strike  it  out,  and  put  another  clause  in  its  place.  On  the  same 
page  you  will  find  that  my  amendment  was  agreed  to  ttnanimously.  I  then 
offered  another  amendment,  recognizing  the  right  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
under  the  Toombs  bill,  to  order  just  such  elections  as  they  saw  proper.  You 
can  find  it  on  page  796  of  the  same  volume.     I  will  read  it :  — 

''  Mr.  Douglas  :  I  have  another  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee,  to  fol- 
low the  amendment  which  has  been  adopted.  The  bill  reads  now  :  'And  until  the 
complete  execution  of  tliis  Act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory.'  It 
has  been  suggested  that  it  should  be  modified  in  this  way  :  '  And  to  avoid  conflict  in 
the  complete  execution  of  this  Act,  all  other  elections  in  said  Territory  are  hereby 
postponed  until  such  time  as  said  Convention  shall  appoint,'  so  that  they  can  appoint 
the  day  in  the  event  that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  come  into  the  Union." 

The  amendment  was  unanimously  agreed  to,  —  clearly  and  distinctly 
recognizing  the  right  of  the  Convention  to  order  just  as  many  elections  as 

23 


178  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

they  saw  proper  in  the  execution  of  the  Act.  Triunbull  concealed  in  his 
Alton  speech  the  fact  that  the  clause  he  quoted  had  been  stricken  out  in  my 
motion,  and  the  other  fact  that  this  other  clause  was  put  in  the  bill  on  my 
motion,  and  made  the  false  charge  that  I  incorporated  into  the  bill  a  clause 
preventing  submission,  in  the  face  of  the  fact,  that,  on  my  motion,  the  bill 
was  so  amended  before  it  passed  as  to  recognize  in  express  words  the  right 
and  duty  of  submission. 

On  this  record  that  I  have  produced  before  you,  I  repeat  my  charge  that 
Trumbull  did  falsify  the  public  records  of  tlie  country,  in  order  to  make  his 
charge  against  me,  and  I  tell  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln  that  if  he  will  examine 
these  records,  he  will  then  know  that  what  I  state  is  true.  Mr.  Lincoln  has 
this  day  indorsed  Mr.  Trumbull's  veracity  after  he  had  my  word  for  it  that 
that  veracity  was  proved  to  be  violated  and  forfeited  by  the  public  records. 
It  will  not  do  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  parading  his  calumnies  against  me,  to  put 
Mr.  Trumbull  between  him  and  the  odium  and  responsibility  which  justly 
attaches  to  such  calumnies.  I  tell  him  that  I  am  as  ready  to  prosecute  the 
indorser  as  the  maker  of  a  forged  note.  I  regret  the  necessity  of  occupying 
my  time  with  these  petty  personal  matters.  It  is  unbecoming  the  dignity  of 
a  canvass  for  an  ofhce  of  the  character  for  which  we  are  candidates.  When  I 
commenced  the  canvass  at  Chicago,  I  spoke  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  terms  of  kind- 
ness as  an  old  friend  ;  I  said  that  he  was  a  good  citizen,  of  unblemished  char- 
acter, against  whom  I  liad  nothing  to  say.  I  repeated  these  complimentary 
remarks  about  him  in  my  successive  speeches,  until  he  became  the  indorser 
for  these  and  other  slanders  against  me.  If  there  is  anything  personally 
disagreeable,  un courteous,  or  disreputable  in  these  personalities,  the  sole 
responsibility  rests  on  Mr.  Lincoln,  Mr.  Trumbull,  and  their  backers. 

I  will  show  you  another  charge  made  by  Mr.  Lincoln  against  me,  as  an 
off-set  to  his  determination  of  willingness  to  take  back  anything  that  is  incor- 
rect, and  to  correct  any  false  statement  he  may  have  made.  He  has  several 
times  charged  that  the  Supreme  Court,  President  Pierce,  President  Buchanan, 
and  myself,  at  the  time  I  introduced  the  Nebraska  bill  in  January,  1854,  at 
Washington,  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  establish  slavery  all  over  this 
country.  I  branded  this  charge  as  a  falsehood,  and  then  he  repeated  it,  asked 
me  to  analyze  its  truth  and  answer  it.  I  told  him,  "  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  know 
what  you  are  after,  —  you  want  to  occupy  my  time  in  personal  matters,  to 
prevent  me  from  showing  up  the  revolutionary  principles  which  the  Abolition 
party  —  whose  candidate  you  are  —  have  proclaimed  to  the  world."  But  he 
asked  me  to  analyze  liis  proof,  and  I  did  so.  I  called  his  attention  to  the  fact 
that  at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  introduced,  there  was  no  such  case  as 
the  Dred  Scott  case  pending  in  the  Supreme  Court,  nor  was  it  brought  there 
for  years  afterwards,  and  hence  that  it  was  impossible  there  could  have  been 
any  such  conspiracy  between  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  other 
parties  involved.  I  proved  by  the  record  that  the  charge  was  false,  and  what 
did  he  answer?  Did  he  take  it  back  like  an  honest  man,  and  say  that  he  had 
been  mistaken  ?  No ;  he  repeated  the  charge,  and  said,  that  although  there 
was  no  such  case  pending  that  year,  there  was  an  understanding  between  the 
Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  and  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
other  parties  involved,  that  the  case  should  be  brought  up.  I  then  demanded 
to  know  who  these  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  were.  He  could  not  or 
would  not  tell ;  he  did  not  know.  In  truth,  there  were  no  Democratic  owners 
of  Dred  Scott  on  the  face  of  the  land.  Dred  Scott  was  owned  at  that  time 
by  the  Eev.  Dr.  Chaffee,  an  Abolition  member  of  Congress  from  Springfield, 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  179 

Massachusetts,  and  his  wife ;  and  Mr.  Lincoln  ought  to  have  known  that 
Dred  Scott  was  so  owned,  for  the  reason  that  as  soon  as  the  decision  was 
announced  by  the  court  Dr.  Chaffee  and  his  wife  executed  a  deed  emanci- 
pating him,  and  put  that  deed  on  record.  It  was  a  matter  of  public  record, 
therefore,  that  at  the  time  the  case  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court,  Dred 
Scott  was  owned  by  an  Abolition  member  of  Congress,  a  friend  of  Lincoln's 
and  a  leading  man  of  his  party,  while  the  defence  was  conducted  by  Abolition 
lawyers,  —  and  thus  the  Abolitionists  managed  both  sides  of  the  case.  I  have 
exposed  these  facts  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  yet  he  will  not  withdraw  his  charge 
of  conspiracy.  I  now  submit  to  you  whether  you  can  place  any  confidence  in 
a  man  wlio  continues  to  make  a  charge  when  its  utter  falsity  is  proven  by  the 
public  records.  I  will  state  another  fact  to  show  how  utterly  reckless  and 
unscrupulous  this  charge  against  the  Supreme  Court,  President  Pierce,  Presi- 
dent Buchanan,  and  myself  is.  Lincoln  says  that  President  Buchanan  was  in 
the  conspiracy  at  Washington  in  the  winter  of  1854,  when  the  Nebraska  bill 
was  introduced.  The  history  of  this  country  shows  that  James  Buchanan  was 
at  that  time  representing  this  country  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  Great  Britain, 
with  distinguished  ability  and  usefulness,  that  he  had  not  been  in  the  United 
States  for  nearly  a  year  previous,  and  that  he  did  not  return  until  about  three 
years  after.  Yet  Mr.  Lincoln  keeps  repeating  this  charge  of  conspiracy  against 
Mr.  Buchanan  when  the  public  records  prove  it  to  be  untrue.  Having  proved 
it  to  be  false  as  far  as  the  Supreme  Court  and  President  Buchanan  are  con- 
cerned, I  drop  it,  leaving  the  public  to  say  whether  I,  by  myself,  without  their 
concurrence,  could  have  gone  into  a  conspiracy  with  them.  My  friends,  you 
see  that  the  object  clearly  is  to  conduct  the  canvass  on  personal  matters,  and 
hunt  me  down  with  charges  that  are  proven  to  be  false  by  the  public  records 
of  the  country,  I  am  willing  to  throw  open  my  whole  public  and  private  life 
to  the  inspection  of  any  man,  or  all  men  who  desire  to  investigate  it.  Hav- 
ing resided  among  you  twenty-five  years,  during  nearly  the  whole  of  which 
time  a  public  man,  exposed  to  more  assaults,  perhaps  more  abuse,  than  any 
man  living  of  my  age,  or  who  ever  did  live,  and  having  survived  it  all  and 
still  commanded  your  confidence,  I  am  willing  to  trust  to  your  knowledge  of 
me  and  my  public  conduct  without  making  any  more  defence  against  these 
assaults. 

Fellow-Citizens,  I  came  here  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  leading  poli- 
tical topics  which  now  agitate  the  country.  I  have  no  charges  to  make  against 
Mr.  Lincoln,  none  against  Mr.  Trumbull,  and  none  against  any  man  who  is  a 
candidate,  except  in  repelling  their  assaults  upon  me.  If  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  man 
of  bad  character,  I  leave  you  to  find  it  out;  if  his  votes  in  the  past  are  not  satis- 
factory, I  leave  others  to  ascertain  the  fact ;  if  liis  course  on  the  Mexican  war 
was  not  in  accordance  with  your  notions  of  patriotism  and  fidelity  to  our  own 
country  as  against  a  public  enemy,  I  leave  you  to  ascertain  the  fact.  I  have  no 
assaults  to  make  upon  him,  except  to  trace  his  course  on  the  questions  that  now 
divide  the  country  and  engross  so  much  of  tlie  people's  attention. 

You  know  that  prior  to  1854  this  country  was  divided  into  two  great  poli- 
tical parties,  one  the  Whig,  the  other  the  Democratic.  I,  as  a  Democrat  for 
twenty  years  prior  to  that  time,  had  been  in  public  discussions  in  this  State  as 
an  advocate  of  Democratic  principles,  and  I  can  appeal  with  confidence  to 
every  old  line  Whig  within  the  hearing  of  my  voice  to  bear  testimony  that 
during  all  that  period  I  fought  you  Whigs  like  a  man  on  every  question  that 
separated  the  two  parties.  I  had  the  highest  respect  for  Henry  Clay  as  a  gal- 
lant party  leader,  as  an  eminent  statesman,  and  as  one  of  the  bright  orna- 
ments of  this  country  ;  but  I  conscientiously  believed  that  the  Democratic 


180  DEBATES,  BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

party  was  right  on  the  questions  whicli  separated  the  Democrats  from  the 
Whigs.  The  man  does  not  live  who  can  say  that  I  ever  personally  assailed 
Henry  Clay  or  Daniel  Webster,  or  any  one  of  the  leaders  of  that  great  party, 
whilst  I  combated  with  all  my  energy  the  measures  they  advocated.  What 
did  we  differ  about  in  those  days  ?  Did  Whigs  and  Democrats  differ  about 
this  slavery  question  ?  On  the  contrary,  did  we  not,  in  1850,  unite  to  a  man 
in  favor  of  that  system  of  Compromise  measures  which  Mr.  Clay  introduced, 
Webster  defended,  Cass  supported,  and  Fillmore  approved  and  made  the  law 
of  the  laud  by  his  signature  ?  While  we  agreed  on  those  Compromise  measures, 
we  differed  about  a  bank,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular,  the  sub- 
treasury,  and  other  questions  of  that  description.  Now,  let  me  ask  you  wliich 
one  of  those  questions  on  which  Whigs  and  Democrats  then  differed  now 
remains  to  divide  the  two  great  parties  ?  Every  one  of  those  questions  which 
divided  Whigs  and  Democrats  has  passed  away,  the  country  has  outgrown  them, 
they  have  passed  into  history.  Hence  it  is  immaterial  whether  you  were 
right  or  I  was  right  on  the  bank,  the  sub-treasury,  and  other  questions,  because 
they  no  longer  continue  living  issues.  What,  then,  has  taken  the  place  of 
those  questions  about  which  we  once  differed  ?  The  slavery  question  has  now 
become  the  leading  and  controlling  issue ;  that  question  on  which  you  and  I 
agreed,  on  which  the  Whigs  and  Democrats  united,  has  now  become  the  lead- 
ing issue  between  the  National  Democracy  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Eepublican, 
or  Abolition,  party  on  the  other. 

Just  recollect  for  a  moment  the  memorable  contest  of  1850,  when  this  coun- 
try was  agitated  from  its  centre  to  its  circumference  by  the  slavery  agitation. 
All  eyes  in  this  nation  were  then  turned  to  the  three  great  lights  that  survived 
the  days  of  the  Eevolution.  They  looked  to  Clay,  tlien  in  retirement  at  Ash- 
land, and  to  Webster  and  Cass,  in  the  United  States  Senate.  Clay  had  retired 
to  Ashland,  having,  as  he  supposed,  performed  his  mission  on  earth,  and  was 
preparing  himself  for  a  better  sphere  of  existence  in  another  world.  In  that 
retirement  he  heard  the  discordant,  harsh,  and  grating  sounds  of  sectional  strife 
and  disunion,  and  he  aroused  and  came  forth  and  resumed  his  seat  in  the 
Senate,  that  great  theatre  of  his  great  deeds.  From  the  moment  that  Clay 
arrived  among  us  he  became  the  leader  of  all  the  Union  men,  whether  Whigs 
or  Democrats.  For  nine  months  we  each  assembled,  each  day,  in  the  council- 
chamber,  Clay  in  the  chair,  with  Cass  upon  his  right  hand,  and  Webster  upon 
his  left,  and  the  Democrats  and  Whigs  gathered  around,  forgetting  differences, 
and  only  animated  by  one  common,  patriotic  sentiment,  to  devise  means  and 
measures  by  which  we  could  defeat  the  mad  and  revolutionary  scheme  of  the 
Northern  Abolitionists  and  Southern  disunionists.  We  did  devise  those  means. 
Clay  brought  them  forward,  Cass  advocated  them,  the  Union  Democrats  and 
Union  Whigs  voted  for  them,  Fillmore  signed  them,  and  they  gave  peace  and 
quiet  to  the  country.  Those  Compromise  measures  of  1850  were  founded  upon 
the  great  fundamental  principle  that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory 
ought  to  be  left  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in 
their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Federal  Constitution.  I  will  ask  every  old 
line  Democrat  and  every  old  line  Whig  within  the  hearing  of  my  voice  if  I 
have  not  truly  stated  the  issues  as  they  then  presented  themselves  to  the  coun- 
try. You  recollect  that  the  Abolitionists  raised  a  howl  of  indignation,  and 
cried  for  vengeance  and  the  destruction  of  Democrats  and  Whigs  both,  who 
supported  those  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  When  I  returned  home  to 
Chicago,  I  found  the  citizens  inflamed  and  infuriated  against  the  authors 
of  those  great  measures.  Being  the  only  man  in  that  city  wlio  was  held 
responsible  for  aftirmative  votes  on  all  those  measures,  I  came  forward  and 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  181 

addressed  the  assembled  iDhabitants,  defended  each  and  every  one  of  Clay's 
Compromise  measures  as  they  passed  the  Senate  and  the  House,  and  were  ap- 
proved by  President  Fillmore.  Previous  to  that  time,  the  city  council  had 
passed  resolutions  nullifying  the  Act  of  Congress,  and  instructing  the  police  to 
withhold  all  assistance  from  its  execution ;  but  the  people  of  Chicago  listened 
to  my  defence,  and,  like  candid,  frank,  conscientious  men,  when  they  became 
convinced  that  they  had  done  an  injustice  to  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  and  all  of  us 
who  had  supported  those  measures,  tliey  repealed  their  nullifying  resolutions, 
and  declared  that  the  laws  should  be  executed  and  the  supremacy  of  the  Con- 
stitution maintained.  Let  it  always  be  recorded  in  history  to  the  immortal 
honor  of  the  people  of  Chicago  that  they  returned  to  their  duty  when  they 
found  that  they  were  wrong,  and  did  justice  to  tliose  whom  they  had  blamed 
and  abused  unjustly.  When  the  Legislature  of  this  State  assembled  that  year, 
they  proceeded  to  pass  resolutions  approving  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850. 
When  the  Whig  party  assembled  in  1852  at  Baltimore  in  National  Convention 
for  the  last  time,  to  nominate  Scott  for  the  Presidency,  they  adopted  as  a  part 
of  their  platform  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  as  the  cardinal  plank  u]wn 
which  every  Whig  would  stand,  and  by  wliich  he  would  regulate  his  future 
conduct.  When  the  Democratic  party  assembled  at  the  same  place  one  month 
after,  to  nominate  General  Pierce,  we  adopted  the  same  platform  so  far  as  those 
Compromise  measures  were  concerned,  agreeing  tliat  we  would  stand  by  those 
glorious  measures  as  a  cardinal  article  in  the  Democratic  faith.  Thus  you  see 
that  in  1852  all  the  old  Whigs  and  all  the  old  Democrats  stood  on  a  common 
plank  so  far  as  this  slavery  question  was  concerned,  differing  on  other  questions. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  how  is  it  that  since  that  time  so  many  of  you  Whigs 
have  wandered  from  the  true  path  marked  out  by  Clay,  and  carried  out  liroad 
and  wide  by  the  great  Webster  ?  How  is  it  that  so  many  old  line  Democrats 
have  abandoned  the  old  faith  of  their  party,  and  joined  with  Abolitionism  and 
Free-soilism  to  overturn  the  platform  of  the  old  Democrats,  and  the  plattbrm 
of  the  old  Whigs  ?  You  cannot  deny  that  since  1854  there  has  been  a  great 
revolution  on  this  one  question.  How  has  it  been  brought  about  ?  I  answer, 
that  no  sooner  was  the  sod  grown  green  over  the  grave  of  the  immortal  Clay, 
no  sooner  was  the  rose  planted  on  the  tomb  of  tlie  god-like  Webster,  than 
many  of  the  leaders  of  the  Whig  party,  such  as  Seward  of  New  York  and 
his  followers,  led  off  and  attempted  to  Abolitionize  the  Whig  party,  and 
transfer  all  your  old  Whigs,  bound  hand  and  foot,  into  the  Abolition  camp. 
Seizing  hold  of  the  temporary  excitement  produced  in  this  country  by  the 
introduction  of  the  Nebraska  l)ill,  the  disappointed  politicians  in  the  Demo- 
cratic party  united  with  the  disappointed  politicians  in  the  Wliig  party,  and 
endeavored  to  form  a  new  party,  composed  of  all  the  Abolitionists,  of  Aboli- 
tionized  Democrats  and  Abolitionized  Whigs,  banded  together  in  an  Abolition 
platform. 

And  who  led  that  crusade  against  National  principles  in  this  State  ?  I 
answer,  Abraham  Lincoln  on  behalf  of  the  Wiiigs,  and  Lyman  Trumbull  on 
behalf  of  the  Democrats,  formed  a  scheme  by  which  they  would  Abolitionize 
the  two  great  parties  in  this  State,  on  condition  that  Lincoln  should  be  sent 
to  the  United  States  Senate  in  place  of  General  Shields,  and  that  Trumbull 
should  go  to  Congress  from  the  Ijelleville  District  until  I  would  be  accommo- 
dating enough  either  to  die  or  resign  for  his  benefit,  and  then  he  was  to  go  to 
the  Senate  in  my  place.  You  all  remember  that  during  the  year  1854  these 
two  worthy  gentlemen,  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Trumbull,  one  an  old  line  Whig 
and  the  other  an  old  line  Democrat,  were  hunting  in  partnership  to  elect  a 


182  DEBATES    BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Legislature  against  the  Democratic  party.  I  canvassed  the  State  that  year 
from  the  time  I  returned  home  until  the  election  came  off,  and  spoke  in  every 
county  that  I  could  reach  during  that  period.  In  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  I  found  Lincoln's  ally,  in  the  person  of  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro, 
preaching  Abolition  doctrines,  while  Lincoln  was  discussing  the  same  princi- 
ples down  here,  and  Trumbull,  a  little  farther  down,  was  advocating  the  elec- 
tion of  members  to  the  Legislature  who  would  act  in  concert  with  Lincoln's 
and  Fred  Douglass's  friends.  I  witnessed  an  effort  made  at  Chicago  by  Lincoln's 
then  associates,  and  now  supporters,  to  put  Fred  Douglass,  the  negro,  on  the 
stand  at  a  Democratic  meeting,  to  reply  to  the  illustrious  General  Cass,  when 
he  was  addressing  the  people  there.  They  had  the  same  negro  hunting  me 
down,  and  they  now  have  a  negro  traversing  the  northern  counties  of  the 
State  and  speaking  in  behalf  of  Lincoln.  Lincoln  knows  that  when  we  were 
at  Freeport  in  joint  discussion  there  was  a  distinguished  colored  friend  of  his 
there  then  who  was  on  the  stump  for  him,  and  who  made  a  speech  there  the 
night  before  we  spoke,  and  another  the  night  after,  a  short  distance  from  Free- 
port,  in  favor  of  Lincoln ;  and  in  order  to  show  how  much  interest  the  colored 
brethren  felt  in  the  success  of  their  brother  Abe,  I  have  with  me  here,  and 
would  read  it  if  it  would  not  occupy  too  much  of  my  time,  a  speech  made  by 
Fred  Douglass  in  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.,  a  short  time  since,  to  a  large  Conven- 
tion in  which Jie  conjures  all  the  friends  of  negro  equality  and  negro  citizenship 
to  rally  as  one  man  around  Abraham  Lincoln,  the  perfect  embodiment  of  their 
principles,  and  by  all  means  to  defeat  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  Thus  you  find 
that  this  Kepublican  party  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  had  colored  gentle- 
men for  their  advocates  in  1854,  in  company  with  Lincoln  and  Trumbull,  as 
they  have  now.  When,  in  October,  1854, 1  went  down  to  Springfield  to  attend 
the  State  Fair,  I  found  the  leaders  of  this  party  all  assembled  together  under 
the  title  of  an  anti-Nebraska  meeting.  It  was  Black  Eepublicans  up  north, 
and  anti-Nebraska  at  Springfield.  I  found  Lovejoy,  a  high-priest  of  Aboli- 
tionism, and  Lincoln,  one  of  the  leaders  who  was  towing  the  old  line  Whigs 
into  the  Abolition  camp,  and  Trumbull,  Sidney  Breese,  and  Governor  Reynolds, 
all  making  speeches  against  the  Democratic  party  and  myself,  at  the  same 
place  and  in  the  same  cause.  The  same  men  who  are  now  fighting  the  Demo- 
cratic party  and  the  regular  Democratic  nominees  in  this  State  were  fighting 
us  then.  They  did  not  then  acknowledge  that  they  had  become  Abolitionists, 
and  many  of  them  deny  it  now.  Breese,  Dougherty,  and  Reynolds  were  then 
fighting  the  Democracy  under  the  title  of  anti-Xebraska  men,  and  now  they 
are  fighting  the  Democracy  under  the  pretence  that  they  are  Simon  pure  Demo- 
crats, saying  that  they  are  authorized  to  have  every  office-holder  in  Illinois 
beheaded  who  ureters  the  election  of  Douolas  to  that  of  Lincoln,  or  the  success 
of  the  Democratic  ticket  in  preference  to  the  Abolition  ticket  for  members  of 
Congress,  State  officers,  members  of  the  Legislature,  or  any  office  in  "the  State. 
They  canvassed  the  State  against  us  in  1854,  as  they  are  doing  now,  owning 
different  names  and  different  principles  in  different  localities,  but  having  a 
common  object  in  view,  viz.  :  The  defeat  of  all  men  holding  National  principles 
in  opposition  to  this  sectional  Abolition  party.  They  carried  the  Legislature 
in  1854,  and  when  it  assembled  in  Springfield  they  proceeded  to  elect  a  United 
States  Senator,  all  voting  for  Lincoln,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  which  excep- 
tions prevented  them  from  quite  electing  him.  And  why  should  they  not  elect 
him  ?  Had  not  Trumbull  agreed  that  Lincoln  should  have  Shields's  place  ? 
Had  not  the  Abolitionists  agreed  to  it?  Was  it  not  the  solemn  compact,  the 
condition  on  which  Lincoln  agreed  to  Abolitionize  the  old  Whigs  that  he  should 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  183 

be  senator  ?  Still,  Trumbull,  having  control  of  a  few  Abolitionized  Democrats, 
would  not  allow  them  all  to  vote  for  Lincoln  on  any  one  ballot,  and  thus  kept 
him  for  some  time  ■within  one  or  two  votes  of  an  election,  until  he  worried 
out  Lincoln's  friends,  and  compelled  them  to  drop  him  and  elect  Trumbull, 
in  violation  of  the  bargain.  I  desire  to  read  you  a  piece  of  testimony  in  con- 
firmation of  the  notoriously  public  facts  which  I  have  stated  to  you.  Colonel 
James  H.  MatJieny,  of  Springfield,  is,  and  for  twenty  years  has  been,  the  confi- 
dential personal  and  political  friend  and  manager  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Matheny  is 
this  very  day  the  candidate  of  the  Eepublican,  or  Abolition,  party  for  Congress 
against  the  gallant  Major  Thos.  L.  Harris,  in  the  Springfield  District,  and  is 
making  speeclies  for  Lincoln  and  against  me.  I  will  read  you  the  testimony 
of  Matheny  about  this  bargain  between  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  wlien  they 
undertook  to  Abolitionize  Whigs  and  Democrats  only  four  years  ago.  Matheny, 
being  mad  at  Trumbull  for  having  played  a  Yankee  trick  on  Lincoln,  exposed 
the  bargain  in  a  public  speech  two  years  ago,  and  I  will  read  the  published 
report  of  that  speech,  the  correctness  of  which  Mr.  Lincoln  will  not  deny  :  — 

"  The  Whigs,  Abolitionists,  Know-Nothings,  and  renegade  Democrats  made  a 
solemn  compact  for  the  pui'pose  of  carrying  this  State  against  the  Democi-acy  on 
this  plan  :  1st,  that  they  would  all  combine  and  elect  Mr.  Trumbull  to  Congress, 
and  thereby  carry  his  district  for  the  Legislature,  in  order  to  throw  all  the  strength 
that  could  be  obtained  into  that  body  against  the  Democrats  ;  2d,  that  when  the 
Legishiture  should  meet,  the  officers  of  that  body,  sucli  as  Speaker,  clei'ks,  doorkeepers, 
etc.,  would  be  given  to  the  Abolitionists  ;  and,  3d,  that  the  Whigs  were  to  have  the 
United  States  senator.  That,  accoi'dingly,  in  good  faith,  Trumbull  was  elected  to 
Congress,  and  his  district  carried  for  the  Legislature ;  and  when  it  convened,  the 
Abolitionists  got  all  the  officers  of  that  body,  and  thus  far  the  'bond'  was  fairly 
executed.  The  Whigs,  on  their  part,  demanded  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to 
the  United  States  Senate,  that  the  bond  might  be  fulfilled,  the  otlier  parties  to  the 
contract  having  already  secured  to  themselves  all  that  was  called  for.  But,  in  the 
most  perfidious  manner,  they  refused  to  elect  Mr.  Lincoln  ;  and  the  mean,  lowdived, 
sneaking  Trumbull  succeeded,  by  pleading  all  that  was  required  by  any  party,  in 
thrusting  Lincoln  aside,  and  foisting  himself,  an  excrescence  from  the  rotten  bowels 
of  the  Democracy,  into  the  United  States  Senate  ;  and  thus  it  has  ever  been,  that 
an  honest  man  makes  a  bad  bargain  when  he  conspires  or  contracts  with  rogues." 

Lincoln's  confidential  friend  Matheny  thought  that  Lincoln  made  a  bad 
bargain  when  he  conspired  with  such  rogues  as  Trumbull  and  the  Abolitionists. 
I  would  like  to  know  whether  Lincoln  had  as  high  opinion  of  Trumbull's 
veracity  when  the  latter  agreed  to  support  him  for  the  Senate,  and  then 
cheated  him  as  he  does  now,  when  Trumbull  comes  forward  and  makes  charges 
against  me.  You  could  not  then  prove  Trumbull  an  honest  man  either  by 
Lincoln,  by  Matheny,  or  by  any  of  Lincoln's  friends.  They  charged  every- 
where that  Trumbull  had  cheated  them  out  of  the  bargain,  and  Lincoln  found 
sure  enough  that  it  was  a  had  bargain  to  contract  and  conspire  witli  rogues. 

And  now  I  will  explain  to  you  what  has  been  a  mystery  all  over  the  State 
and  Union,  —  the  reason  why  Lincoln  was  nominated  for  the  United  States 
Senate  by  the  Black  Republican  Convention.  You  know  it  has  never  been 
usual  for  any  party,  or  any  convention,  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  United 
States  senator.  Probably  this  was  the  first  time  that  such  a  thing  was  ever 
done.  The  Black  Republican  Convention  had  not  been  called  for  that  pur- 
pose, but  to  nominate  a  State  ticket,  and  every  man  was  surprised  and  many 
disOTsted  when  Lincoln  was  nominated.  Archie  Williams  thought  he  "was 
entitled  to  it.  Browning  knew  that  he  deserved  it,  Wentworth  was  certain  that 


184  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

he  would  get  it,  Peck  had  hopes,  Judd  felt  sure  that  he  was  the  man,  and 
Palmer  had  claims  and  had  made  arrangements  to  secure  it ;  but,  to  their 
utter  amazement,  Lincoln  was  nominated  by  the  Convention,  and  not  only 
that,  but  he  received  the  nomination  unanimously,  by  a  resolution  declaring 
that  Abraham  Lincoln  was  "  the  first,  last,  and  only  choice  "  of  the  Republican 
party.  How  did  this  occur  ?  Why,  because  they  could  not  get  Lincoln's 
friends  to  make  another  bargain  with  "  rogues,"  unless  the  whole  party  would 
come  up  as  one  man  and  pledge  their  honor  that  they  would  stand  by  Lincoln 
first,  last,  and  all  the  time,  and  that  he  should  not  be  cheated  by  Lovejoy  this 
time,  as  he  was  by  Trumbull  before.  Thus,  by  passing  this  resolution,  the 
Abolitionists  are  all  for  him,  Lovejoy  and  Farnsworth  are  canvassing  for  him, 
Giddings  is  ready  to  come  here  in  his  behalf,  and  the  negro  speakers  are 
already  on  the  stump  for  him,  and  he  is  sure  not  to  be  cheated  this  time. 
He  would  not  go  into  the  arrangement  until  he  got  their  bond  for  it,  and 
Trumbull  is  compelled  now  to  take  the  stump,  get  up  false  charges  against 
me,  and  travel  all  over  the  State  to  try  and  elect  Lincoln,  in  order  to  keep 
Lincoln's  friends  quiet  about  the  bargain  in  which  Trumbull  cheated  them 
four  years  ago.  You  see,  now,  why  it  is  that  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  are  so 
mighty  fond  of  each  other.  They  have  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  break  me 
down  by  these  assaults  on  my  public  character,  in  order  to  draw  my  attention 
from  a  fair  exposure  of  the  mode  in  which  they  attempted  to  Abolitionize  the 
old  Whig  and  the  old  Democratic  parties  and  lead  them  captive  into  the 
Abolition  camp.  Do  you  not  all  remember  that  Lincoln  went  around  here 
four  years  ago  making  speeches  to  you,  and  telling  that  you  should  all  go  for 
the  Abolition  ticket,  and  swearing  that  he  was  as  good  a  Whig  as  he  ever 
was;  and  that  Trumbull  went  all  over  the  State  making  pledges  to  the  old 
Democrats,  and  trying  to  coax  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  swearing  by  his 
Maker,  with  the  uplifted  hand,  that  he  was  still  a  Democrat,  always  intended 
to  be,  and  that  never  would  he  desert  the  Democratic  party.  He  got  your 
votes  to  elect  an  Abolition  Legislature,  which  passed  Abolition  resolutions, 
attempted  to  pass  Abolition  laws,  and  sustained  Abolitionists  for  office,  State 
and  National.  Now,  the  same  game  is  attempted  to  be  played  over  again. 
Then  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  made  captives  of  the  old  Whigs  and  old  Demo- 
crats, and  carried  them  into  the  Abolition  camp,  where  Father  Giddings,  the 
high-priest  of  Abolitionism,  received  and  christened  them  in  the  dark  cause 
just  as  fast  as  they  were  brought  in.  Giddings  found  the  converts  so  numer- 
ous that  he  had  to  have  assistance,  and  he  sent  for  John  P.  Hale,  N.  P.  Banks, 
Chase,  and  other  Abolitionists,  and  they  came  on,  and  with  Lovejoy  and  Fred 
Douglass,  the  negro,  helped  to  baptize  these  new  converts  as  Lincoln,  Trumbull, 
Breese,  Eeynolds,  and  Dougherty  could  capture  them  and  bring  them  within 
the  Abolition  clutch.  Gentlemen,  they  are  now  around,  making  the  same 
kind  of  speeches.  Trumbull  was  down  in  ]\Ionroe  County  the  other  day, 
assailing  me,  and  making  a  speech  in  favor  of  Lincoln ;  and  I  will  show  you 
under  what  notice  his  meeting  was  called.  You  see  these  people  are  Black 
Republicans  or  Abolitionists  up  north,  while  at  Springfield  to-day  they  dare 
not  call  their  Convention  "  Republican,"  but  are  obliged  to  say  "  a  Convention 
of  all  men  opposed  to  the  Democratic  party  ; "  and  in  Monroe  County  and 
lower  Egypt  Trumbull  advertises  their  meetings  as  follows  :  — 

A  meeting  of  the  Free  Democracy  will  take  place  at  Waterloo  ou  Monday, 
September  12th  inst.,  whereat  Hon.  Lyman  Trumbull,  Hon.  John  Baker,  and  others 
will  address  the  people  upon  the  different  political  topics  of  the  day.     Members  of 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  185 

all  parties  are  cordially  invited  to  be  present,  and  hear  and  determine  for  them- 
selves. 

September  9,  1858.  The  Free  DEMOCRACY. 

Did  you  ever  before  hear  of  this  new  party,  called  the  "Free  Democracy"? 

What  object  have  these  Black  Eepublicans  in  changing  their  name  in 
every  county  ?  They  have  one  name  in  the  north,  another  in  the  centre,  and 
another  in  the  south.  When  I  used  to  practise  law  before  my  distinguished 
judicial  friend,  whom  I  recognize  in  the  crowd  before  me,  if  a  man  was 
charged  with  horse-stealing,  and  the  proof  showed  that  he  went  by  one  name 
in  Stephenson  County,  another  in  Sangamon,  a  third  in  Monroe,  and  a  fourth 
in  Randolph,  we  thouglit  that  the  fact  of  his  changing  his  name  so  often  to  avoid 
detection  was  pretty  strong  evidence  of  his  guilt.  I  would  like  to  know  why 
it  is  that  this  great  Free-soil  Abolition  party  is  not  willing  to  avow  the  same 
name  in  all  parts  of  the  State  ?  If  this  party  believes  that  its  course  is  just, 
why  does  it  not  avow  the  same  principles  in  the  Xorth  and  in  the  South,  in 
the  East  and  in  the  West,  wherever  the  American  Hag  waves  over  American 
soil  ? 

A  voice :  The  party  does  not  call  itself  Black  Republican  in  the  North. 

Mr.  Douglas  :  Sir,  if  you  will  get  a  copy  of  the  paper  published  at  Wau- 
kegan,  fifty  miles  from  Chicago,  which  advocates  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
and  has  his  name  flying  at  its  mast-head,  you  will  find  that  it  declares  that 
"  this  paper  is  devoted  to  the  cause  "  of  Black  Republicanism.  I  had  a  copy  of 
it,  and  intended  to  bring  it  down  here  into  Egypt  to  let  you  see  what  name 
the  party  rallied  under  up  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State,  and  to  convince 
you  that  their  principles  are  as  different  in  the  two  sections  of  the  State  as  is 
their  name.  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  mislaid  it  and  have  not  got  it  here. 
Their  principles  in  the  north  are  jet-black,  in  the  centre  they  are  in  color  a 
decent  mulatto,  and  in  lower  Egypt  they  are  almost  wliite.  Wliy,  I  admired 
many  of  the  white  sentiments  contained  in  Lincoln's  speech  at  Jonesboro,  and 
could  not  help  but  contrast  them  with  tlie  speeches  of  the  same  distinguished 
orator  made  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State.  Down  here  he  denies  that  the 
Black  Republican  party  is  opposed  to  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States, 
under  any  circumstances,  and  says  that  they  are  willing  to  allow  the  people  of 
each  State,  when  it  wants  to  come  into  the  Union,  to  do  just  as  it  pleases  on 
the  question  of  slavery.  In  the  north,  you  find  Lovejoy,  their  candidate  for 
Congress  in  the  Bloomington  District,  Farnsworth,  their  candidate  in  the 
Chicago  District,  and  Washburne,  their  candidate  in  the  Galena  District,  all 
declaring  that  never  will  they  consent,  under  any  circumstances,  to  admit 
another  Slave  State,  even  if  the  people  want  it.  Thus,  while  they  avow  one 
set  of  principles  up  there,  they  avow  another  and  entirely  different  set  down 
here.  And  here  let  me  recall  to  Mr.  Lincoln  the  scriptural  quotation  which 
he  has  applied  to  the  Federal  Government,  that  a  house  divided  against  itself 
cannot  stand,  and  ask  him  how  does  he  expect  this  Abolition  party  to  stand 
when  in  one  half  of  the  State  it  advocates  a  set  of  principles  which  it  has 
repudiated  in  the  other  half? 

I  am  told  that  I  have  but  eight  minutes  more.  I  would  like  to  talk  to  you 
an  hour  and  a  half  longer,  but  I  will  make  the  best  use  I  can  of  the  remaining 
eight  minutes.  Mr.  Lincoln  said  in  his  first  remarks  that  he  was  not  in  favor 
of  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man.  Every- 
where up  north  he  has  declared  that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  the  social  and 
political  equality  of  the  negro,  but  he  would  not  say  whether  or  not  he  was 

24. 


186  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

opposed  to  negroes  voting  and  negro  citizenship.  I  want  to  know  whether  he 
is  for  or  against  negro  citizenship.  He  declared  his  utter  opposition  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  and  advanced  as  a  reason  that  the  court  had  decided  that 
it  was  not  possible  for  a  negro  to  be  a  citizen  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  If  he  is  opposed  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  for  that  reason, 
he  must  be  in  favor  of  conferring  the  right  and  privilege  of  citizenship  upon 
the  negro !  I  have  been  trying  to  get  an  answer  from  him  on  that  point,  but 
have  never  yet  obtained  one,  and  I  will  show  you  why.  In  every  speech  he 
made  in  the  north  he  quoted  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  prove  that 
all  men  were  created  equal,  and  insisted  that  tlie  phrase  "all  men"  included 
the  negro  as  well  as  the  white  man,  and  that  the  equality  rested  upon  divine 
law.     Here  is  what  he  said  on  that  point :  — 

"  I  should  like  to  know  if,  taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  which 
declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where 
will  it  stop  1  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not  another  say 
it  does  not  mean  some  other  man  1  If  that  Declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get 
the  statute  book  in  which  we  find  it  and  tear  it  out." 

Lincoln  maintains  there  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  asserts  that 
the  negro  is  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  that  under  divine  law ;  and  if  he 
believes  so,  it  was  rational  for  him  to  advocate  negro  citizenship,  which,  when 
allowed,  puts  the  negro  on  an  equality  under  the  law.  I  say  to  you  in  all 
frankness,  gentlemen,  that  in  my  opinion  a  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  cannot  be, 
and  ought  not  to  be,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  will  not 
even  qualify  my  opinion  to  meet  the  declaration  of  one  of  the  Judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  "  that  a  negro  descended  from  African 
parents,  who  was  imported  into  this  country  as  a  slave,  is  not  a  citizen,  and 
cannot  be."  I  say  that  this  government  was  established  on  the  white  basis. 
It  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  poster- 
ity forever,  and  never  should  be  administered  by  any  except  white  men. 
I  declare  that  a  negro  ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  whether  his  parents  were 
imported  into  this  country  as  slaves  or  not,  or  whether  or  not  he  was  born 
here.  It  does  not  depend  upon  the  place  a  negro's  parents  were  Ijorn,  or 
whether  they  were  slaves  or  not,  but  upon  the  fact  that  he  is  a  negro,  belong- 
ing to  a  race  incapable  of  self-government,  and  for  that  reason  ought  not  to  be 
on  an  equality  Mdth  white  men. 

My  friends,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  not  time  to  pursue  this  argument 
further,  as  I  might  have  done,  but  for  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  compelled  me 
to  occupy  a  portion  of  my  time  in  repelling  those  gross  slanders  and  false- 
hoods that  Trumbull  has  invented  against  me  and  put  in  circulation.  In 
conclusion,  let  me  ask  you  wliy  should  this  government  be  divided  by  a 
geographical  line,  —  arraying  all  men  North  in  one  great  hostile  party  against 
all  men  South  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you,  in  his  speech  at  Springtield,  "  that  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand ;  that  this  Government,  divided  into 
Free  and  Slave  States,  cannot  endure  permanently ;  that  they  must  either  be 
all  free  or  all  slave ;  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other."  Why  cannot  this  govern- 
ment endure,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it  ? 
When  this  government  was  established  by  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison, 
Jay,  Hamilton,  Franklin,  and  the  other  sages  and  patriots  of  that  day,  it  was 
composed  of  Free  States  and  Slave  States,  bound  together  by  one  common 
Constitution.  We  have  existed  and  prospered  from  that  day  to  this  thus 
divided,  and  have  increased  with  a  rapidity  never  before  equalled,  in  wealth, 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  187 

the  extension  of  territory,  and  all  the  elements  of  power  and  greatness,  until 
we  have  become  the  first  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Why  can  we  not 
thus  continue  to  pi'osper  ?  We  can,  if  we  will  live  up  to  and  execute  the  gov- 
ernment upon  those  principles  upon  which  our  fathers  established  it.  During 
the  whole  period  of  our  existence,  Divine  Providence  has  smiled  upon  us,  and 
showered  upon  our  nation  richer  and  more  abundant  blessings  than  have  ever 
been  conferred  upon  any  other. 


MR.    LINCOLN'S   REJOINDER. 

Fellow-Citizens  :  It  follows  as  a  matter  of  course  that  a  half-hour  answer 
to  a  speech  of  an  hour  and  a  half  can  be  but  a  very  hurried  one.  I  shall 
only  be  able  to  touch  upon  a  few  of  the  points  suggested  by  Judge  Douglas, 
and  give  them  a  brief  attention,  while  I  shall  have  to  totally  omit  others,  for 
the  want  of  time. 

Judge  Douglas  has  said  to  you  that  he  has  not  been  able  to  get  from  me  an 
answer  to  the  question  whether  I  am  in  favor  of  negro  citizenship.  So  far  as 
I  know,  the  Judge  never  asked  me  the  question  before.  He  shall  have  no 
occasion  to  ever  ask  it  again,  for  I  tell  him  very  frankly  that  I  am  not  in 
favor  of  negro  citizenship.  This  furnishes  me  an  occasion  for  saying  a  few 
words  upon  the  subject.  I  mentioned,  in  a  certain  speech  of  mine  which  has 
been  printed,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  a  negro  could  not 
possibly  be  made  a  citizen ;  and  without  saying  what  was  my  ground  of  com- 
plaint in  regard  to  that,  or  whether  I  had  any  ground  of  complaint,  Judge 
Douglas  has  from  that  thing  manufactured  nearly  everything  that  he  ever 
says  about  my  disposition  to  produce  an  equality  between  the  negroes  and 
the  white  people.  If  any  one  will  read  my  speech,  he  will  find  I  mentioned 
that  as  one  of  the  points  decided  in  the  course  of  the  Supreme  Court  opinions, 
but  I  did  not  state  wliat  objection  I  had  to  it.  But  Judge  Douglas  tells  the 
people  what  my  objection  was  when  I  did  not  tell  them  myself.  Now,  my 
opinion  is  that  the  different  States  have  the  power  to  make  a  negro  a  citizen, 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  if  they  choose.  The  Dred  Scott 
decision  decides  that  they  have  not  that  power.  If  the  State  of  Illinois  had 
that  power,  I  should  be  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  it.  That  is  all  I  have  to 
say  about  it. 

Judge  Douglas  has  told  me  that  he  heard  my  speeches  north,  and  my 
speeches  south ;  that  he  had  heard  me  at  Ottawa  and  at  Freeport  in  the  north, 
and  recently  at  Jonesboro  in  the  south,  and  there  was  a  very  different  cast  of 
sentiment  in  the  speeches  made  at  the  different  points.  I  will  not  charge 
upon  Judge  Douglas  that  he  wilfully  misrepresents  me,  but  I  call  upon  every 
fair-minded  man  to  take  these  speeches  and  read  them,  and  I  dare  him  to 
point  out  any  difference  let  ween  my  speeches  north  and  south.  While  I  am  here 
perhaps  I  ought  to  say  a  word,  if  I  have  the  time,  in  regard  to  the  latter  por- 
tion of  the  Judge's  speech,  which  was  a  sort  of  declamation  in  reference  to  my 
having  said  I  entertained  the  belief  that  this  government  would  not  endure, 
half  slave  and  half  free.  I  have  said  so,  and  I  did  not  say  it  without  what 
seemed  to  me  to  be  good  reasons.  It  perhaps  would  require  more  time  than  I 
have  now  to  set  forth  these  reasons  in  detail ;  but  let  me  ask  you  a  few  ques- 
tions. Have  we  ever  had  any  peace  on  this  slavery  question  ?  When  are  we 
to  have  peace  upon  it,  if  it  is  kept  in  the  position  it  now  occupies  ?     How  are 


188  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

we  ever  to  have  peace  upon  it  ?  That  is  au  important  question.  To  be  sure, 
if  we  will  all  stop,  and  allow  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  to  march  on  in 
their  present  career  until  they  plant  the  institution  all  over  the  nation,  here 
and  wherever  else  our  flag  waves,  aud  we  acquiesce  in  it,  there  will  be  peace. 
But  let  me  ask  Judge  Douglas  how  he  is  going  to  get  the  people  to  do  that  ? 
They  have  been  wrangling  over  this  question  for  at  least  forty  years.  This 
was  the  cause  of  the  agitation  resulting  in  the  Missouri  Compromise ;  this 
produced  the  troubles  at  the  annexation  of  Texas,  in  the  acquisition  of  the 
territory  acquired  in  the  Mexican  War.  Again,  this  was  the  trouble  which 
was  quieted  by  the  Compromise  of  1850,  when  it  was  settled  "forever''  as 
both  the  great  political  parties  declared  in  their  National  Conventions.  That 
"  forever  "  turned  out  to  be  just  four  years,  when  Judge  Douglas  himself  reopened 
it.  When  is  it  likely  to  come  to  au  end  ?  He  introduced  the  Nebraska  bill 
in  1854  to  put  another  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  He  promised  that  it 
would  finish  it  all  up  immediately,  and  he  has  never  made  a  speech  since, 
until  he  got  into  a  quarrel  with  the  President  about  the  Lecompton  Constitu 
tion,  in  which  he  has  not  declared  that  we  are  just  at  the  end  of  the  slavery 
agitation.  But  in  one  speech,  I  think  last  winter,  he  did  say  tliat  he  did  n't 
quite  see  when  the  end  of  the  slavery  agitation  would  come.  Now  he  tells 
us  again  that  it  is  all  over,  aud  the  people  of  Kansas  have  voted  down  the 
Lecompton  Constitution.  How  is  it  over?  That  was  only  one  of  the 
attempts  at  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation,  —  one  of  these  "final 
settlements."  Is  Kansas  in  the  Union  ?  Has  she  formed  a  constitution  that 
she  is  likely  to  come  in  under  ?  Is  not  the  slavery  agitation  still  an  open 
question  in  that  Territory  ?  Has  the  voting  down  of  that  constitution  put  an 
end  to  all  the  trouble  ?  Is  that  more  likely  to  settle  it  than  every  one  of 
these  previous  attempts  to  settle  the  slavery  agitation  ?  Now,  at  this  day  in 
the  history  of  the  world  we  can  no  more  foretell  where  the  end  of  this  slavery 
afjitation  will  be  than  we  can  see  the  end  of  the  M'orld  itself.  The  Nebraska- 
Kansas  bill  was  introduced  four  years  and  a  half  ago,  and  if  the  agitation  is 
ever  to  come  to  an  end,  we  may  say  we  are  four  years  and  a  half  nearer  tlie 
end.  So,  too,  we  can  say  we  are  four  years  and  a  half  nearer  tlie  end  of  the 
world ;  and  we  can  just  as  clearly  see  the  end  of  the  world  as  we  can  see 
the  end  of  this  agitation.  The  Kansas  settlement  did  not  conclude  it.  If 
Kansas  should  sink  to-day,  aud  leave  a  great  vacant  space  in  the  earth's  sur- 
face, this  vexed  question  would  still  be  among  us.  I  say,  then,  there  is  no 
way  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  amongst  us  but  to  put  it  back 
upon  the  basis  where  our  fathers  placed  it ;  no  way  but  to  keep  it  out  of  our 
new  Territories,  —  to  restrict  it  forever  to  the  old  States  where  it  now  exists. 
Then  the  public  mind  ivill  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction.     That  is  one  way  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation. 

The  other  way  is  for  us  to  surrender,  and  let  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends 
have  their  way  and  plant  slavery  over  all  the  States  ;  cease  speaking  of  it  as 
in  any  way  a  wrong ;  regard  slavery  as  one  of  the  common  matters  of  property, 
and  speak  of  negroes  as  we  do  of  our  horses  and  cattle.  But  while  it  drives 
on  in  its  state  of  progress  as  it  is  now  driving,  and  as  it  has  driven  for  the  last 
five  years,  I  have  ventured  the  opinion,  and  I  say  to-day,  that  we  will  have  no 
end  to  the  slavery  agitation  until  it  takes  one  turn  or  the  other.  I  do  not  mean 
that  when  it  takes  a  turn  toward  ultimate  extinction  it  will  be  in  a  day,  nor 
in  a  year,  nor  in  two  years.  I  do  not  sujDpose  that  in  the  most  peaceful  way 
ultimate  extinction  would  occur  in  less  than  a  hundred  years  at  least ;  but 
that  it  will  occur  in  the  best  way  for  both  races,  in  God's  own  good  time,  I 


AND   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS.  189 

have  no  doubt.  But,  my  friends,  I  have  used  up  more  of  my  time  than  I 
intended  on  this  point. 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  about  Trumbull  and  myself  having  made  a 
bargain  to  sell  out  the  entire  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  i}i  1854  :  Judge 
Douglas  brings  forward  no  evidence  to  sustain  his  charge,  except  the  speech 
Matheny  is  said  to  have  made  in  1856,  in  which  he  told  a  cock-and-bull  story 
of  that  sort,  upon  the  same  moral  principles  that  Judge  Douglas  tells  it  here 
to-day.  This  is  the  simple  truth.  I  do  not  care  greatly  for  the  story,  but 
this  is  the  truth  of  it ;  and  I  have  twice  told  Judge  Douglas  to  his  face  that 
from  beginning-  to  end  there  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  have  called 
upon  him  for  the  proof,  and  he  does  not  at  all  meet  me  as  Trumbull  met  him 
upon  that  of  which  we  were  just  talking,  by  producing  the  record.  He  did  n't 
bring  the  record,  because  there  ^^■as  no  record  for  him  to  bring.  When  he 
asks  if  I  am  ready  to  indorse  Trumbull's  veracity  after  he  has  broken  a 
bargain  with  me,  I  reply  that  if  Trumbull  had  broken  a  bargain  with  me,  I 
would  not  be  likely  to  indorse  his  veracity  ;  but  I  am  ready  to  indorse  his 
veracity  because  neither  in  that  thing,  nor  in  any  other,  in  all  the  years 
that  I  have  known  Lyman  Trumbull,  have  I  kiioivn  him  to  fail  of  his  word 
or  tell  a  falsehood,  large  or  small.  It  is  for  that  reason  that  I  indorse  Lyman 
TrutnbuU. 

Mr.  James  Brown  (Douglas  Post-Master) :  What  does  Ford's  History  say 
about  him  ? 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Some  gentleman  asks  me  what  Ford's  History  says  about  him. 
My  own  recollection  is,  that  Ford  speaks  of  Trumbull  in  very  disrespectful 
terms  in  several  portions  of  his  book,  a7id  that  he  talks  a  great  deal  ivorse  of 
Judge  Donglcts.     I  refer  you,  sir,  to  the  History  for  examination. 

Judge  Douglas  complains,  at  considerable  length,  about  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  Trumbull  and  myself  to  attack  him  personally.  I  want  to  attend 
to  that  suggestion  a  moment.  I  don't  want  to  be  unjustly  accused  of  deal- 
ing illiberally  or  unfairly  with  an  adversary,  either  in  court,  or  in  a  political 
canvass,  or  anywhere  else.  I  would  despise  myself  if  I  supposed  myself 
ready  to  deal  less  liberally  with  an  adversary  than  I  was  willing  to  be 
treated  myself.  Judge  Douglas,  in  a  general  way,  without  putting  it  in  a 
direct  shape,  revives  the  old  charge  against  me  in  reference  to  the  Mexican 
war.  He  does  not  take  the  responsibility  of  putting  it  in  a  very  definite  form, 
hut  makes  a  general  reference  to  it.  That  charge  is  more  than  ten  years  olch 
He  complains  of  Trumbull  and  myself,  because  he  says  we  bring  charges 
against  him  one  or  two  years  old.  He  knows,  too,  tliat  in  regard  to  the 
Mexican  war  story,  the  more  respectable  papers  of  his  own  party  throughout 
the  State  have  been  compelled  to  take  it  back  and  acknowledge  that  it  was 
a  lie. 

[Here  Mr.  Lincoln  turned  to  the  crowd  on  the  platform,  and,  selecting 
Hon.  Orlando  B.  Ficklin,  led  him  forward,  and  said: — ] 

I  do  not  mean  to  do  anything  with  Mr.  Ficklin,  except  to  present  his  face 
and  tell  you  that  he  personally  knows  it  to  he  a  lie  !  He  was  a  member  of 
Congress  at  the  only  time  I  was  in  Congress,  and  he  [Ficklin]  knows  that 
whenever  there  was  an  attempt  to  procure  a  vote  of  mine  which  would  indorse 
the  origin  and  justice  of  the  war,  I  refused  to  give  such  indorsement,  and  voted 
against  it ;  but  I  never  voted  against  tlie  supplies  for  the  army,  and  he  knows, 
as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  that  whenever  a  dollar  was  asked,  by  way  of  com- 
pensation or  otherwise,  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldiers,  I  gave  all  the  votes  that 
Ficklin  or  Douglas  did,  and  j^o'hajys  'more. 


190  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Mr.  FiCKLiN  :  INIy  friends,  I  wish  to  say  this  in  reference  to  the  matter.  Mr. 
Lincoln  and  myself  are  just  as  good  personal  friends  as  Judge  Douglas  and 
myself.  In  reference  to  this  Mexican  war,  my  recollection  is  that  when 
Ashmun's  resolution  [amendment]  was  offered  by  Mr.  Ashraun  of  Massachu- 
setts, in  which  he  declared  tliat  the  Mexican  war  was  unnecessary  and 
unconstitutionally  commenced  by  the  President,  —  my  recollection  is  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  voted  for  that  resolution. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  That  is  the  truth.  Now,  you  all  remember  that  was  a 
resolution  censuring  the  President  for  the  manner  in  which  the  war  was 
begun.  You  know  they  have  charged  that  I  voted  against  the  supplies,  by 
which  I  starved  the  soldiers  who  were  out  fighting  the  battles  of  their  coun- 
try. I  say  that  Ficklin  knows  it  is  false.  When  that  charge  was  brought 
forward  by  the  Chicago  "  Times,"  the  Springfield  "  Register  "  [Douglas  organ] 
reminded  the  "  Times  "  that  the  charge  really  applied  to  John  Henry ;  and  I 
do  know  that  Jolin  Henry  is  now  making  speeches  and  fiercely  battling  for  Judge 
Douglas.  If  the  Judge  now  says  that  he  offers  this  as  a  sort  of  a  set-off  to 
what  I  said  to-day  in  reference  to  Trumbull's  charge,  then  I  remind  him  that 
he  made  this  charge  before  I  said  a  word  about  Trumbull's.  He  brought  this 
forward  at  Ottawa,  the  first  time  we  met  face  to  face ;  and  in  the  opening 
speech  tliat  Judge  Douglas  made,  he  attacked  me  in  regard  to  a  matter  ten 
years  old.  Is  n't  he  a  pretty  man  to  be  whining  about  people  making  charges 
against  him  only  two  years  old  ! 

The  Judge  thinks  it  is  altogether  wrong  that  I  should  have  dwelt  upon 
this  charge  of  Trumbull's  at  all.  I  gave  the  apology  for  doing  so  in  my  open- 
ing speech.  Perhaps  it  did  n't  fix  your  attention.  I  said  that  when  Judge 
Douglas  was  speaking  at  places  where  I  spoke  on  the  succeeding  day,  he  used 
very  harsh  language  about  this  charge.  Two  or  three  times  afterward  I  said  I 
had  confidence  in  Judge  Trumbull's  veracity  and  intelligence;  and  my  own 
opinion  was,  from  what  I  knew  of  the  character  of  Judge  Trumbull,  that  he 
would  vindicate  his  position,  and  prove  whatever  he  had  stated  to  be  true. 
This  I  repeated  two  or  three  times ;  and  then  I  dropped  it,  without  saying 
anything  more  on  the  subject  for  weeks,  —  perhaps  a  month.  I  passed  it  by 
without  noticing  it  at  all  till  I  found,  at  Jacksonville,  Judge  Douglas,  in  the 
plenitude  of  his  power,  is  not  willing  to  answer  Trumbull  and  let  me  alone, 
l3ut  he  comes  out  there  and  uses  this  language :  "  He  should  not  hereafter 
occupy  his  time  in  refuting  such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that  Lincoln, 
having  indorsed  the  character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him 
[Lincoln]  responsible  for  the  slanders."  What  was  Lincoln  to  do  ?  Did  he 
not  do  right,  when  he  had  the  fit  opportunity  of  meeting  Judge  Douglas  here, 
to  tell  him  he  was  ready  for  the  responsibility  ?  I  ask  a  candid  audience 
whether  in  doing  thus  Judge  Douglas  was  not  the  assailant  rather  than  I  ? 
Here  I  meet  him  face  to  face,  and  say  I  am  ready  to  take  the  responsibility, 
so  far  as  it  rests  on  me. 

Having  done  so,  I  ask  the  attention  of  this  audience  to  the  question  whether 
I  have  succeeded  in  sustaining  the  charge,  and  whether  Judge  Douglas  has  at 
all  succeeded  in  rebutting  it  ?  You  all  heard  me  call  upon  him  to  say  which 
of  these  pieces  of  evidence  was  a  forgery  ?  Does  he  say  that  what  I  present 
here  as  a  copy  of  the  original  Toombs  bill  is  a  forgery  ?  Does  he  say  that 
what  I  present  as  a  copy  of  the  bill  reported  by  himself  is  a  forgery  ?  Or  what 
is  presented  as  a  transcript  from  the  "  Globe  "  of  the  quotations  from  Bigler's 
speech,  is  a  forgery  ?  Does  he  say  the  quotations  from  his  own  speech  are 
forgeries  ?     Does  he  say  this  transcript  from  Trumbull's  speech  is  a  forgery  ? 


AND    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  191 

["  He  did  n't  deny  one  of  them."]  /  would  then  like  to  hnow  lioiv  it  comes  about 
that  ivhen  each  piece  of  a  story  is  true,  the  whole  story  turns  out  false  ?  I  take 
it  these  people  have  some  sense ;  they  see  plainly  that  Judge  Douglas  is  play- 
ing cuttle-fish,  —  a  small  species  of  fish  that  has  no  mode  of  defending  itself 
when  pursued  except  by  throwing  out  a  black  fluid,  which  makes  the  water  so 
dark  the  enemy  cannot  see  it,  and  thus  it  escapes.  Ain't  the  Judge  playing 
the  cuttle-fish  ? 

Now,  I  would  ask  very  special  attention  to  the  consideration  of  Judge 
Douglas's  speech  at  Jacksonville ;  and  when  you  shall  read  his  speech  of 
to-day,  I  ask  you  to  watch  closely  and  see  which  of  these  pieces  of  testimony, 
every  one  of  which  he  says  is  a  forgery,  he  has  shown  to  be  such.  Not  one 
of  them  has  he  shown  to  he  a  forgery.  Then  I  ask  the  original  question,  if 
each  of  the  pieces  of  testimony  is  true,  how  is  it  2'>ossible  that  the  tvhole  is  a 
falsehood  1 

In  regard  to  Trumbull's  charge  that  he  [Douglas]  inserted  a  provision  into 
the  bill  to  prevent  the  constitution  being  submitted  to  the  people,  what  was 
his  answer  ?  He  comes  here  and  reads  from  the  "  Congressional  Globe  "  to 
show  that  on  his  motion  that  provision  was  struck  out  of  the  bill.  Why, 
Trumbull  has  not  said  it  was  not  stricken  out,  but  Trumbull  says  he  [Douglas] 
put  it  in ;  and  it  is  no  answer  to  the  charge  to  say  he  afterward  took  it  out. 
Both  are  perhaps  true.  It  was  in  regard  to  that  thing  precisely  that  I  told 
him  he  had  dropped  tlie  cub.  Trumbull  shows  you  that  by  his  introducing 
the  bill  it  was  his  cub.  It  is  no  answer  to  that  assertion  to  call  Trumbull 
a  liar  merely  because  he  did  not  specially  say  that  Douglas  struck  it  out.  Sup- 
pose that  were  the  case,  does  it  answer  Trumbull  ?  I  assert  that  you  [point- 
ing to  an  individual]  are  here  to-day,  and  you  undertake  to  prove  me  a  liar 
by  showing  that  you  were  in  Mattoon  yesterday.  I  say  that  you  took  your 
hat  off  your  head,  and  you  prove  me  a  liar  by  putting  it  on  your  head.  That 
is  the  whole  force  of  Douglas's  argument. 

Now,  I  want  to  come  back  to  my  original  question.  Trumbull  says  that 
Judge  Douglas  had  a  bill  with  a  provision  in  it  for  submitting  a  Constitution 
to  be  made  to  a  vote  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  Does  Judge  Douglas  deny 
that  fact  ?  Does  he  deny  that  the  provision  which  Trumbull  reads  was  put  in 
that  bill  ?  Then  Trumbull  says  he  struck  it  out.  Does  he  dare  to  deny  that  ? 
He  does  not,  and  I  have  the  right  to  repeat  the  question, —  Why  Judeje 
Douglas  took  it  02it  ?  Bigler  has  said  there  was  a  combination  of  certain 
senators,  among  whom  he  did  not  include  Judge  Douglas,  by  which  it  was 
agreed  that  the  Kansas  bill  should  have  a  clause  in  it  not  to  have  the  consti- 
tution formed  under  it  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  He  did  not  say  that 
Douglas  was  among  them,  but  we  prove  by  another  source  that  about  the  same 
time  Douglas  comes  into  the  Senate  with  that  provision  stricken  out  of  the  hill. 
Although  Bigler  cannot  say  they  were  all  working  in  concert,  yet  it  looks 
very  much  as  if  the  thing  was  agreed  upon  and  done  with  a  mutual  under- 
standing after  the  conference ;  and  while  we  do  not  know  that  it  was  abso- 
lutely so,  yet  it  looks  so  probable  that  we  have  a  right  to  call  upon  the  man 
who  knows  the  true  reason  why  it  was  done,  to  tell  what  the  true  reason  was. 
When  he  will  not  tell  what  the  true  reason  was,  he  stands  in  the  attitude  of 
an  accused  thief  who  has  stolen  goods  in  his  possession,  and  when  called  to 
account,  refuses  to  tell  where  he  got  them.  Not  only  is  this  the  evidence,  but 
when  he  comes  in  with  the  bill  having  the  provision  stricken  out,  he  tells  us 
in  a  speech,  not  then,  but  since,  that  these  alterations  and  modifications  in  the 
bill  had  heen  made  by  him,  in  considtation  with   Toombs,  the  oricjinator  of  the 


192  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

hill.     He  tells  us  the  same  to-day.     He  says  there  were  certain  moJificatious 
made  in  the  bill  in  Committee  that  he  did  not  vote  for.     I  ask  you  to  remem- 
ber while  certain  amendments  were  made  which  he  disapproved  of,  but  which 
a  majority  of  the  Committee  voted  in,  he  has  himself  told  us  that  in  this 
particular  the  alterations  and  modifications  were  made  hy  him,  iqwn  considtatioii 
with  Toomls.    We  have  his  own  word  that  these  alterations  were  made  hy  Mm, 
and  not  by  the  Committee.     Now,  I  ask,  what  is  the  reason  Judge  Douglas  is 
so  chary  about  coming  to   the   exact  question  ?     What  is  the  reason  he  will 
not  tell  you  anything  about  HOW  it  was  made,  BY  whom  it  was  made,  or  that  he 
remembers  it  being  made  at  all  ?    Why  does  he  stand  playing  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  words,  and  quibbling  around  the  edges  of  the  evidence  ?     If  he  can 
explain  all  this,  but  leaves  it  unexplained,  I  have  a  right  to  infer  that  Judge 
Douglas  understood  it  was  the  purpose  of  his  party,  in  engineering  that  bill 
through,  to  make  a  constitution,  and  have  Kansas  come  into  the  Union  with 
that  constitution,  without  its  being  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  peojjle.    If  he  will 
explain  his  action  on  this  question,  by  giving  a  better  reason  for  the  facts  that 
happened,  than  he  has  done,  it  will  be  satisfactory.    But  until  he  does  that,  — 
until  he  gives  a  better  or  more  plausible  reason  than  he  has  offered  against 
the  evidence  in  the  case,  —  /  suggest  to  him  it  loill  not  avail  him  at  all  that  he 
swells  himself  up,  takes  on  dignity,  and  calls  ijcople   liars.     Why,  sir,  there  is 
not  a  w^ord  in  Trumbull's  speech  that  depends  on  Trumbull's  veracity  at  all. 
He  has  only  arrayed   the  evidence,  and  told  you  what  follows  as  a  matter  of 
reasoning.     There  is  not  a  statement  in  the  whole  speech  that  depends  on 
Trumbuil's'word.     If  you  have  ever  studied  geometry,  you  remember  that  by 
a  course  of  reasoning,  Euclid  proves  that  all  the  angles  in  a  triangle  are  equal 
to  two  right  angles.     Euclid  has  shown  you  how  to  work  it  out.    Now,  if  you 
undertake  to  disprove  that  proposition,  and  to  show  that  it  is  erroneous,  would 
you  prove  it  to  be  false  by  calling  Euclid  a  liar  ?     They  tell  me  that  my  time 
is  out,  and  therefore  I  close. 


Extract  from  j\[r.  Trumbull's  Speech  made  at  Alton,  referred  to  by  ^Ir. 
Lincoln  in  his  opening  at  Charleston. 

I  come  now  to  another  extract  from  a  speech  of  Mr.  Douglas,  made  at  Beards- 
town,  and  reported  in  the  "  Missouri  EepubHcan."  This  extract  has  reference  to  a 
statement  made  by  me  at  Chicago,  wherein  I  charged  that  an  agreement  had  been 
entered  into  by  the  very  persons  now  claiming  credit  for  opposing  a  constitution  not 
submitted  to  the  people,  to  have  a  constitution  formed  and  put  in  force  without  giv- 
ing the  people  of  Kansas  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  Without  meeting  this 
charge,  which  I  substantiated  by  a  reference  to  the  record,  my  colleague  is  reported 
to  have  said  :  — 

"  For  when  this  charge  was  once  made  in  a  much  milder  form,  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  I  did  brand  it  as  a  lie  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Trumbull,  and  Mr. 
Trumbull  sat  and  heard  it  thus  branded,  without  daring  to  say  it  was  true.  I  tell 
you  he  knew  it  to  be  false  when  he  uttered  it  at  Ciiicago  ;  and  yet  he  says  he  is 
going  to  cram  the  lie  down  his  throat  until  he  should  cry  enough.  The  miserable, 
craven-hearted  wretch  !  he  would  rather  have  both  ears  cut  off  than  to  use  that  lan- 
guage in  my  presence,  where  I  could  call  him  to  account.  I  see  the  object  is  to  draw 
me  into  a  personal  controversy,  with  the  hope  thereby  of  concealing  from  the  public 
the  enormity  of  the  principles  to  which  they  are  committed.  I  shall  not  allow  much 
of  my  time  in  this  canvass  to  he  occupied  by  tliese  personal  assaults  :  I  have  none  to 
make  on  Mr.  Lincoln;  I  have  none  to  make  on  Mr.  Trumbull;  I  have  none  to  make 


AND   STEPPIEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  193 

on  any  other  political  opponent.  If  I  cannot  stand  on  my  own  public  record,  on  my 
own  private  and  public  character  as  history  will  record  it,  I  will  not  attempt  to  rise 
by  traducing  the  character  of  other  men.  I  will  not  make  a  blackguard  of  myself 
by  imitating  the  course  they  have  pursued  against  me.  I  have  no  charges  to  make 
auainst  them." 

This  is  a  singular  statement,  taken  altogether.  After  indulging  in  language 
which  would  disgrace  a  loafer  in  the  filthiest  purlieus  of  a  fish-market,  he  winds  up 
by  saying  that  he  will  not  make  a  blackguard  of  himself,  that  he  has  no  charges  to 
make  against  me.  So  I  suppose  he  considers  that  to  say  of  another  that  he  knew  a 
thing  to  be  false  when  he  utttered  it,  that  he  was  a  "  miserable,  craven-hearted 
wretch,"  does  not  amount  to  a  personal  assault,  and  does  not  make  a  man  a  black- 
guard. A  discriminating  public  will  judge  of  that  for  themselves ;  but  as  he  says  he 
has  "  no  charges  to  make  on  Mr.  Trumbull,"  I  suppose  politeness  requires  I  should 
believe  him.  At  the  risk  of  again  offending  this  mighty  man  of  war,  and  losing 
something  more  than  my  ears,  I  shall  have  the  audacity  to  again  read  the  record 
upon  him,  and  prove  and  pin  upon  him,  so  that  he  cannot  escape  it,  the  truth  of 
every  word  I  uttered  at  Chicago.  You,  fellow-citizens,  are  the  judges  to  determine 
whether  I  do  this.  My  colleague  says  he  is  willing  to  stand  on  his  public  record. 
By  that  he  shall  be  tried ;  and  if  he  had  been  able  to  discriminate  between  the 
exposure  of  a  public  act  by  the  record,  and  a  personal  attack  upon  the  individual,  he 
would  have  discovered  that  there  was  nothing  personal  in  my  Chicago  remarks, 
unless  the  condemnation  of  himself  by  his  own  public  record  is  personal ;  and  then 
3'^ou  must  judge  who  is  most  to  blame  for  the  torture  his  public  record  inflicts  upon 
him,  he  for  making,  or  I  for  reading  it  after  it  was  made.  As  an  individual,  I  care 
very  little  about  Judge  Douglas  one  way  or  the  other.  It  is  his  public  acts  with 
which  I  have  to  do,  and  if  they  condemn,  disgrace,  and  consign  him  to  oblivion,  he 
has  only  himself,  not  me,  to  blame. 

Now,  the  charge  is  that  there  was  a  plot  entered  into  to  have  a  constitution 
formed  for  Kansas,  and  put  in  force,  without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to 
pass  upon  it,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  the  plot.  This  is  as  susceptible  of  proof 
by  the  record  as  is  the  fact  that  >the  State  of  Minnesota  was  admitted  into  the 
Union  at  the  last  session  of  Congress. 

On  the  25th  of  June,  1856,  a  bill  was  pending  in  the  United  States  Senate  to 
authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  and  come  into  the  Union.  On 
that  day  Mr.  Toombs  offered  an  amendment  which  he  intended  to  propose  to  the  bill 
which  was  ordered  to  be  printed,  and,  with  the  original  bill  and  other  amendments, 
recommended  to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  Chairman. 
This  amendment  of  Mr.  Toombs,  printed  by  order  of  the  Senate,  and  a  copy  of 
Avhich  I  have  here  present,  provided  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners  who  were 
to  take  a  census  of  Kansas,  divide  the  Territory  into  election  districts,  and  superin- 
tend the  election  of  delegates  to  form  a  constitution,  and  contains  a  clause  in  the 
18th  .section  which  I  will  read  to  you,  requiring  the  constitution  which  should  be 
formed  to  bo  submitted  to  the  people  for  adoption.     It  reads  as  follows  :  — 

"  That  the  following  propositions  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  re- 
jection, which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention,  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  elec- 
tion for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  on  the  United  States, 
and  upon  the  said  State  of  Kansas,"   etc. 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  of  the  newspaper  press  that  this  section  did  not 
require  the  constitution  which  should  be  formed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for 
approval,  and  that  it  was  only  the  land  propositions  which  were  to  be  submitted. 
You  will  observe  the  language  is  that  the  propositions  are  to  be  "  ratified  by  the 
people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution."  Would  it  have  been  pos- 
sible to  ratify  the  land  propositions  "  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion," unless  such  an  election  was  to  be  held] 

When  one  thing  is  required  by  a  contract  or  law  to  be  done,  the  doing  of  which 

25 


194  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

is  made  dependent  ujion  and  cannot  be  performed  vpithont  the  doing  of  some  other 
thing,  is  not  that  other  thing  just  as  much  required  by  the  contract  or  law  as  the 
first  1  It  matters  not  in  wliat  part  of  the  Act,  nor  in  what  phraseology  the  intention 
of  the  Legislature  is  expressed,  so  you  can  clearly  ascertain  what  it  is ;  and  whenever 
that  intention  is  ascertained  from  an  examination  of  the  language  used,  such  inten- 
tion is  part  of  and  a  requirement  of  the  law.  Can  any  candid,  fair-minded  man  read 
the  section  I  have  quoted,  and  say  that  the  intention  to  have  the  constitution  which 
should  be  formed  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  adoption,  is  not  clearly  expressed] 
In  my  judgment,  there  can  be  no  controversy  among  honest  men  upon  a  proposition 
so  plain  as  this.  Mr.  Douglas  has  never  pretended  to  deny,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
that  the  Toombs  amendment,  as  originally  introduced,  did  require  a  submission  of 
the  constitution  to  the  people.  This  amendment  of  Mr.  Toombs  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  Avhich  Mr.  Douglas  was  Chairman,  and  reported  back  by  him  on 
the  30th  of  June,  with  the  words,  "  And  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution,"  stricken  out.  I  have  here  a  copy  of  the  bill  as 
reported  back  by  Mr.  Douglas,  to  substantiate  the  statement  I  make.  Various  other 
alterations  were  also  made  in  the  bill,  to  which  I  shall  presently  have  occasion  to 
call  attention.  There  was  no  other  clause  in  the  original  Toombs  bill  requiring  a 
submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people  than  the  one  I  have  read,  and  there  was 
no  clause  whatever,  after  that  was  struck  out,  in  the  bill,  as  reported  back  by  Judge 
Douglas,  requiring  a  submission.  I  will  now  introduce  a  witness  whose  testimony 
cannot  be  impeached,  he  acknowledging  himself  to  have  been  one  of  the  conspirators 
and  privy  to  the  fact  about  which  he  testifies. 

Senator  Bigler,  alluding  to  the  Toombs  bill,  as  it  was  called,  and  which,  after 
sundry  amendments,  passed  the  Senate,  and  to  the  propriety  of  submitting  the  consti- 
tution which  should  be  formed  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  made  the  following  statement 
in  his  place  in  the  Senate,  December  9th,  1857.  I  read  from  part  1,  "Congres- 
sional Globe"  of  last  session,  paragraph  21  :  — 

"  I  was  present  when  that  subject  was  discussed  by  senators,  before  the  bill  was 
introduced,  and  the  question  was  raised  and  discussed  whether  the  constitution, 
when  formed,  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  It  was  held  by  the  most 
intelligent  on  the  subject  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding  that 
Territory,  the  danger  of  any  experiment  at  that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it  would  be 
better  that  there  should  be  no  such  provision  in  the  Toombs  bill ;  and  it  is  my 
understanding,  in  all  the  intercourse  I  had,  that  that  Convention  would  make  a 
constitution  and  send  it  here,  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular  vote." 

In  speaking  of  this  meeting  again  on  the  21st  December,  1857  ("Congressional 
Globe,"  same  volume,  page  113),  Senator  Bigler  said  :  — 

"  Nothing  was  farther  from  my  mind  than  to  allude  to  any  social  or  confidential 
interview.  The  meeting  was  not  of  that  character.  Indeed,  it  was  semi-official,  and 
called  to  promote  the  public  good.  My  recollection  was  clear  that  I  left  the  confer- 
ence under  the  impression  that  it  had  been  deemed  best  to  adopt  measures  to  admit 
Kansas  as  a  State  through  the  agency  of  one  popular  election,  and  that  for  delegates 
to  the  Convention.  This  impression  was  the  stronger,  because  I  thought  the  spirit 
of  the  bill  infringed  i;pon  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  to  which  I  had  great  aver- 
sion ;  but  with  the  hope  of  accomplishing  great  good,  and  as  no  movement  had  been 
made  in  that  direction  in  the  Territory,  I  waived  this  objection,  and  concluded  to 
support  the  measure.  I  have  a  few  items  of  testimony  as  to  the  correctness  of  these 
impressions,  and  with  their  submission  I  shall  be  content.  I  have  before  me  the  bill 
reported  by  the  Senator  from  Illinois,  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856,  providing  for  the 
admission  of  Kansas  as  a  State,  the  third  section  of  which  reads  as  follows  :  — 

"  '  That  the  following  propositions  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby  offered  to  the  said 
Convention  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  when  formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion ;  which,  if  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election 
for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States  and 
upon  the  said  State  of  Kansas.' 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  195 

"  The  bill  read  in  place  by  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  on  the  25th  of  June,  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  contained  the  same  section,  word  for  word. 
Both  these  bills  were  under  consideration  at  the  conference  referred  to  ;  but,  sir,  wlien 
the  Senator  from  Illinois  reported  the  Toombs  bill  to  the  Senate,  with  amendments, 
the  next  morning,  it  did  not  contain  that  portion  of  the  third  section  which  indicated 
to  the  Convention  tliat  the  constitution  should  be  approved  by  the  people.  The 
words  '  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  election  for  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  ' 
had  been  stricken  out." 

I  am  not  now  seeking  to  prove  that  Douglas  was  in  the  plot  to  force  a  constitutioii 
upon  Kansas  without  allowing  the  people  to  vote  directly  upon  it.  I  shall  attend  to 
that  branch  of  the  subject  by  and  by.  My  object  now  is  to  prove  the  existence  of 
the  plot,  what  the  design  was,  and  I  ask  if  I  have  not  already  done  so.  Here  are  the 
facts  :  — 

The  introduction  of  a  bill  on  the  7th  of  March,  1856,  providing  for  the  calling  of 
a  Convention  in  Kansas  to  form  a  State  constitution,  and  providing  that  the  constitu- 
tion should  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  adoption  ;  an  amendment  to  this  bill,  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Toombs,  containing  the  same  requirement ;  a  reference  of  these  various 
bills  to  the  Committee  on  Territories ;  a  consultation  of  senators  to  determine  whether 
it  was  advisable  to  have  the  constitution  submitted  for  ratification  ;  the  determina- 
tion that  it  was  not  advisable  ;  and  a  report  of  the  bill  back  to  the  Senate  next  morn- 
ing, with  the  clause  providing  for  the  submission  stricken  out.  Could  evidence  be 
more  complete  to  establish  the  first  part  of  the  charge  I  have  made  of  a  plot  having 
been  entered  into  by  somebody,  to  have  a  constitution  adopted  without  submitting  it 
to  the  people  1 

Now,  for  the  other  part  of  the  charge,  that  Judge  Douglas  was  in  this  plot,  whether 
knowingly  or  ignorantly  is  not  material  to  my  purpose.  The  charge  is  that  he  was 
an  instrument  co-operating  in  the  project  to  have  a  constitution  formed  and  put  into 
operation,  without  affording  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  The  first 
evidence  to  sustain  the  charge  is  tlie  fact  that  he  reported  back  the  Toombs  amend- 
ment, with  the  clause  providing  for  the  submission  stricken  out,  —  this  in  connec- 
tion with  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  9th  of  December,  1857  ("  Congressional 
Globe,"  part  1,  page  14),  wherein  he  stated  :  — 

"That  during  the  last  Congress  I  [Mr.  Douglas]  reported  a  bill  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Territories,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and  form  a 
Constitution  for  themselves.  Subsequently  the  Senator  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Toombs) 
brought  forward  a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after  having  been  modified  by  him 
and  myself  in  consultation,  was  passed  by  the  Senate." 

This  of  itself  ought  to  be  sufl[icient  to  show  that  my  colleague  was  an  instrument  in 
the  plot  to  have  a  constitution  put  in  force  without  submitting  it  to  the  people,  and 
to  forever  close  his  mouth  from  attempting  to  deny.  No  man  can  reconcile  his  acts 
and  former  declarations  with  his  present  denial,  and  the  only  charitable  conclusion 
would  be  that  he  was  being  used  by  others  without  knowing  it.  Whether  he  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  even  this  excuse,  you  must  judge  on  a  candid  hearing  of  the 
facts  I  shall  present.  When  the  charge  was  first  made  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
by  Mr.  Bigler,  that  my  colleague  had  voted  for  an  Enabling  Act  which  put  a  govern- 
ment in  operation  without  submitting  the  constitution  to  the  people,  my  colleague 
("Congressional  Globe,"  last  session,  part  1,  page  24)  stated:  — 

"  1  will  ask  the  senator  to  show  mo  an  intimation  from  any  one  member  of  the 
Senate,  in  the  whole  debate  on  the  Toombs  bill,  and  in  the  Union  from  any  quarter, 
that  the  constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  I  will  venture  to  say 
that  on  all  sides  of  the  chamber  it  was  so  understood  at  the  time.  If  the  opponents 
of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not,  they  would  have  made  the  point  on  it ;  and  if 
they  had  made  it,  we  should  certainly  have  yielded  to  it,  and  put  in  the  clause.  That 
is  a  discovery  made  since  the  President  found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  that  would  be  done  which  ought  in  fairness  to  have  been  done." 

I  knew  at  the  time  this  statement  was  made  tluit  I  had  urged  the  very  objection 


196  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

to  the  Toombs  Lill  two  years  before,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  the  submission  of  tlie 
constitution.  You  will  find  my  remarks,  made  on  the  2d  of  July,  1856,  in  the 
appendix  to  the  "Congressional  Globe"  of  that  year,  page  179,  urging  tliis  very 
objection.  Do  you  ask  why  I  did  not  expose  him  at  the  time  1  I  will  tell  you  :  Mr. 
Douglas  was  then  doing  good  service  against  the  Lecompton  iniquity.  The  Kepub- 
licans  were  then  engaged  in  a  hand-to-hand  fight  with  the  National  Democracy  to 
prevent  the  bringing  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a  Slave  State  against  the  wishes  of 
its  inhabitants,  and  of  course  I  was  unwilling  to  turn  our  guns  from  the  common 
enemy  to  strike  down  an  ally.  Judge  Douglas,  however,  on  the  same  day,  and  in  the 
same  debate,  probably  recollecting,  or  being  reminded  of,  the  fact  that  I  had  objected 
to  the  Toombs  bill  when  pending,  that  it  did  not  provide  for  the  submission  of  the 
constitution  to  the  people,  made  another  statement,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  same 
volume  of  the  "  Congressional  Globe,"  page  22,  in  which  he  says  :  — 

"  That  the  bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  is  true,  and  my  attention  was  called  to 
that  about  the  time  it  was  ];)assed  ;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that  powers 
not  delegated  were  reserved,  and  that  of  course  the  constitution  would  be  submitted 
to  the  people." 

Whether  this  statement  is  consistent  with  the  statement  just  before  made,  that 
had  the  point  been  made  it  would  have  been  yielded  to,  or  that  it  was  a  new  dis- 
covery, you  will  determine  ;  for  if  the  public  records  do  not  convict  and  condemn 
him,  he  may  go  uncondemned,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  make  no  use  here  of  the 
testimony  of  Senator  Bigler  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas  must  have  been  privy  to  the 
consultation  held  at  his  house,  when  it  was  determined  not  to  submit  the  constitu- 
tion to  the  people,  because  Judge  Douglas  denies  it,  and  I  wish  to  use  his  own  acts 
and  declarations,  which  are  abundantly  sufficient  for  my  purpose. 

I  come  to  a  piece  of  testimony  which  disposes  of  all  these  various  pretences  which 
have  been  set  up  for  striking  out  of  the  original  Toombs  proposition  the  clause  requir- 
ing a  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people,  and  shows  that  it  was  not  done 
either  by  accident,  by  inadvertence,  or  because  it  was  believed  that,  the  bill  being 
silent  on  the  subject,  the  constitution  would  necessarily  be  submitted  to  the  people 
for  approval.  What  Avill  you  think,  after  listening  to  the  facts  already  presented,  to 
show  that  there  was  a  design  with  those  who  concocted  the  Toombs  bill,  as  amended, 
not  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people,  if  I  now  bring  before  you  the  amended 
bill  as  Judge  Douglas  reported  it  back,  and  show  the  clause  of  the  original  bill  requir- 
ing submission  was  not  only  struck  out,  but  that  other  clauses  were  inserted  in  the 
bill,  putting  it  absolutely  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention  to  submit  the  constitu- 
tion to  the  people  for  approval,  had  they  desired  to  do  sol  If  I  can  produce  such 
evidence  as  that,  will  you  not  all  agree  that  it  clinches  and  establishes  forever  all  I 
charged  at  Chicago,  and  more  too  1 

I  propose  now  to  furnish  that  evidence.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Toombs's 
bill  provided  for  holding  an  election  for  delegates  to  form  a  constitution  under  the 
supervision  of  commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  the  President ;  and  in  the  bill  as 
reported  back  by  Judge  Douglas,  these  words,  not  to  be  found  in  the  orif/inal  hill,  are 
inserted  at  the  close  of  the  11th  section,  viz.  :  — 

"  And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  Act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in 
said  Territory." 

This  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention  to  refer  to  the  people  for 
adoption;  it  absolutely  prohibited  the  holding  of  any  other  election  than  that  for  the 
election  of  delegates,  till  that  Act  was  completely  executed,  which  would  not  have 
been  until  Kansas  was  admitted  as  a  State,  or  at  all  events  till  her  constitution  was 
fully  prepared  and  ready  for  submission  to  Congress  for  admission.  Other  amend- 
ments reported  by  Judge  Douglas  to  the  original  Toombs  bill  clearly  show  that 
the  intention  was  to  enable  Kansas  to  become  a  State  without  any  further  action 
than  sim]^ly  a  resolution  of  admission.  The  amendment  reported  by  Mr.  Douglas, 
that  "  until  the  next  Congressional  apportionment,  the  said  State  shall  have  one 
representative,"  clearly  shows  this,  no  such  provision  being  contained  in  the  original 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  197 

Toombs  bill.  For  wliat  other  earthlj'  purpose  could  the  clause  to  prevent  any  other 
election  in  Kansas,  except  that  of  delegates,  till  it  Avas  admitted  as  a  State,  have 
been  inserted,  except  to  prevent  a  submission  of  the  Constitution,  when  formed,  to 
the  people] 

The  Toombs  bill  did  not  pass  in  the  exact  shape  in  which  Judge  Douglas  reported 
it.  Several  amendments  were  made  to  it  in  the  Senate.  I  am  now  dealing  with  the 
action  of  Judge  Douglas  as  connected  with  that  bill,  and  speak  of  the  bill  as  he  re- 
commended it.  The  facts  I  have  stated  in  regard  to  this  matter  appear  upon  the  records, 
which  I  have  here  present  to  show  to  any  man  who  wishes  to  look  at  them.  They 
establish  bej^ond  the  power  of  controversy  all  the  charges  I  have  made,  and  show 
that  Judge  Douglas  was  made  use  of  as  an  instrument  by  others,  or  else  knowingly 
was  a  party  to  the  scheme  to  have  a  government  put  in  force  over  the  people  of 
Kansas,  without  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  That  others  high  in 
position  in  the  so-called  Democratic  party  were  parties  to  such  a  scheme  is  confessed 
by  Governor  Bigler;  and  the  only  reason  why  the  scheme  was  not  carried,  and 
Kansas  long  ago  forced  into  the  Uinon  as  a  Slave  State,  is  the  fact,  that  the  Republi- 
cans were  sufficiently  strong  in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  defeat  the  measure. 


Extract  from  jNIr.  Douglas's  Speech  made  at  Jacksonville,  and  referred 
[to  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  opening  at  Charleston. 

I  have  been  reminded  by  a  friend  behind  me  that  there  is  another  topic  upon 
wdiich  there  has  been  a  desire  expressed  that  I  should  speak.  I  am  told  that  jNIr. 
Lyman  Trundndl,  who  has  tlie  good  fortune  to  hold  a  seat  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  in  violation  of  the  bargain  between  him  and  Liucoln,  was  here  the  other  day 
and  occupied  his  time  in  making  certain  charges  against  me,  involving,  if  they  be 
true,  moral  turpitude.  I  am  also  informed  that  the  cliarges  he  made  here  were  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  those  made  by  him  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  which  were  printed 
in  the  newspapers  of  that  city.  I  now  propose  to  answer  those  charges  and  to  anni- 
hilate every  pretext  that  an  honest  man  has  ever  had  for  repeating  them. 

In  order  that  I  may  meet  these  charges  fairly,  I  will  read  them,  as  made  by  Mr. 
Trumbull,  in  his  Chicago  speech,  in  his  own  language.     He  says :  — 

"  Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  make  the  distinct  charge  that  there  was  a  preconcerted 
arrangement  and  plot  entered  into  by  the  very  men  who  now  claim  credit  for  oppos- 
ing a  constitution  not  submitted  to  the  people,  to  have  a  constitution  formed  and  put 
in  force  without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  it.  This,  my  friends, 
is  a  serious  charge,  but  I  charge  it  to-night  that  the  very  men  who  traverse  the  country 
under  banners  proclaiming  popular  sovereignty,  by  design  concocted  a  bill  on  purpose 
to  force  a  constitution  upon  that  people." 

Again,  speaking  to  some  one  in  the  crowd,  he  says  :  — 

"  And  you  want  to  satisfy  yourself  that  he  was  in  the  plot  to  force  a  constitution 
upon  that  people  ]  I  will  satisfy  you.  I  will  cram  the  truth  down  any  honest  man's 
throat  until  he  cannot  deny  it,  and  to  the  man  wdio  does  deny  it  I  will  cram  the  lie 
down  his  throat  till  he  shall  cry,  '  Enough  ! '  It  is  preposterous  ;  it  is  the  most 
damnable  effrontery  that  man  ever  put  on  to  conceal  a  scheme  to  defraud  and  cheat 
the  people  out  of  their  rights,  and  then  claim  credit  for  it." 

Tliat  is  polite  and  decent  language  for  a  senator  of  the  United  States.  Eemeni- 
ber  tliat  that  language  was  used  without  any  provocation  whatever  from  me.  I  had 
not  alluded  to  him  in  any  manner  in  any  speech  that  I  had  made,  hence  without 
provocation.  As  soon  as  he  sets  his  foot  within  the  State,  he  makes  the  direct 
charge  that  I  was  a  party  to  a  plot  to  force  a  coTistitntion  upon  the  people  of  Kansas 
against  their  will,  and,  knowing  that  it  wotdd  be  denied,  he  talks  about  cramming  the 
lie  down  the  throat  of  any  man  who  shall  deny  it,  until  he  cries,  "  Enough." 


198  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Why  did  lie  take  it  for  granted  that  it  would  be  denied,  unless  he  knew  it  to  be 
false  ]  Why  did  he  deem  it  necessary  to  make  a  threat  in  advance  that  he  would 
"cram  the  lie"  down  the  throat  of  any  man  that  should  deny  iti  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  entire  Abolition  party  consider  it  very  polite  for  Mr.  Trumbull  to  go  round 
uttering  calumnies  of  that  kind,  bullying,  and  talking  of  cramming  lies  down  men's 
throats  ;  but  if  I  deny  any  of  his  lies  by  calling  him  a  liar,  they  are  shocked  at  the 
indecency  of  the  language  ;  hence,  to-day,  instead  of  calling  him  a  liar  I  intend  to 
prove  that  he  is  one. 

I  wisli,  in  the  Hrst  place,  to  refer  to  the  evidence  adduced  by  Trumbull,  at  Chicago, 
to  sustain  his  charge.  He  there  declared  that  Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  introduced  a 
bill  into  Congress  authorizing  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  and  come 
into  the  Union,  that  when  introduced  it  contained  a  clause  requiring  the  constitution 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  that  I  struck  out  the  words  of  that  clause. 

Suppose  it  were  true  that  there  was  such  a  clause  in  the  bill,  and  that  I  struck  it 
out,  is  that  proof  of  a  plot  to  force  a  constitution  upon  a  people  against  their  will  1 
Bear  in  mind  that  from  the  days  of  George  Washington  to  the  Administration  of 
Franklin  Pierce,  there  had  never  been  passed  by  Congress  a  bill  requiring  the  sub- 
mission of  a  constitution  to  the  people.  If  Trumbull's  cliarge,  that  I  struck  out 
that  clause,  were  true,  it  would  only  prove  that  I  had  reported  the  bill  in  the  exact 
shape  of  every  bill  of  like  character  that  passed  under  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madi- 
son, Monroe,  Jackson,  or  any  other  President,  to  the  time  of  the  then  present  Admin- 
istration. I  ask  you,  would  that  be  evidence  of  a  design  to  force  a  constitution  on  a 
people  against  their  will  1  If  it  were  so,  it  would  be  evidence  against  Washington, 
Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  Van  Buren,  and  every  other  President. 

But,  upon  examination,  it  turns  out  that  the  Toombs  bill  never  did  contain  a  clause 
requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted.  Hence  no  such  clause  was  ever  stricken 
out,  by  me  or  anybody  else.  It  is  true,  however,  that  the  Toombs  bill  and  its  au- 
thors all  took  it  for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  be  submitted.  There  had 
never  been,  in  the  history  of  this  government,  any  attempt  made  to  force  a  consti- 
tution upon  an  unwilling  people,  and  nobody  dreamed  that  any  such  attempt  would 
be  made,  or  deemed  it  necessary  to  provide  for  such  a  contingency.  If  such  a  clause 
was  necessary  in  Mr.  Trumbull's  opinion,  wky  did  he  not  offer  an  amendment  to  that 
effect  ] 

In  order  to  give  more  pertinency  to  that  question,  I  will  read  an  extract  from 
Trumbull's  speech  in  the  Senate,  on  the  Toombs  bill,  made  on  the  2d  of  July,  1856. 
He  said  :  — 

"  We  are  asked  to  amend  this  bill  and  make  it  perfect,  and  a  liberal  spirit  seems 
to  be  manifested  on  the  part  of  some  senators  to  have  a  fair  bill.  .  It  is  difficult,  I 
admit,  to  frame  a  bill  that  will  give  satisfaction  to  all,  but  to  approach  it,  or  come 
near  it,  I  think  two  things  must  be  done." 

The  first,  tlien,  he  goes  on  to  say,  was  the  application  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to 
the  Territories,  and  the  second  the  repeal  of  all  the  laws  passed  by  the  Territorial 
Legislature.  He  did  not  then  say  that  it  was  necessary  to  put  in  a  clause  requiring 
the  submission  of  the  constitution.  Why,  if  he  thought  such  a  provision  necessary, 
did  he  not  introduce  it  1  He  says  in  his  speech  that  he  was  invited  to  offer  amend- 
ments. Why  did  he  not  do  so  ]  He  cannot  pretend  that  he  had  no  chance  to  do 
this,  for  he  did  offer  some  amendments,  but  none  requiring  submission. 

I  now  proceed  to  show  that  Mr.  Trumbull  knew  at  the  time  that  the  bill  was 
silent  as  to  the  subject  of  submission,  and  also  that  he,  and  everybody  else,  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  be  submitted.  Now  for  the  evidence.  In 
his  second  speech  he  says  :  "  The  bill  in  many  of  its  features  meets  my  approbation." 
So  he  did  not  think  it  so  very  bad. 
Further  on  he  says  :  — 

"  In  regard  to  the  measure  introduced  by  the  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs], 
and  recommended  by  the  Committee,  I  regard  it,  in  many  respects,  as  a  most  excel- 
lent lull;  but  we  must  look  at  it  in  the  liglit  of  surrounding  circumstances.     In  the 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  199 

condition  of  things  now  existing  in  the  country,  I  do  not  consider  it  as  a  safe  meas- 
ure, nor  one  which  will  give  peace  ;  and  I  will  give  my  reasons.  First,  it  allbrds  no 
immediate  relief.  It  provides  for  taking  a  census  of  the  voters  in  the  Territory  for 
an  election  in  November,  and  the  assembling  of  a  Convention  in  December,  to  form, 
if  it  thinks  proper,  a  constitution  for  Kansas,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the 
Union  as  a  State.  It  is  not  until  December  that  the  Convention  is  to  meet.  It  would 
take  some  time  to  form  a  constitution.  /  snppose  that  constitution  would  have  to  be 
ratified  by  the  people  before  it  becomes  validP 

He  there  expressly  declared  that  he  supposed,  under  the  bill,  the  constitution 
would  have  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  before  it  became  valid.  He  went  on  to 
say:  — 

*' No  provision  is  made  in  this  bill  for  such  a  ratification.  This  is  objectionable 
to  my  mind.  I  do  not  think  the  people  should  be  bound  by  a  constitution,  without 
passing  upon  it  directly,  themselves." 

Why  did  he  not  offer  an  amendment  providing  for  such  a  submission,  if  he 
thought  it  necessary"?  Notwithstanding  the  absence  of  such  a  clause,  he  took  it 
for  granted  that  the  constitution  would  have  to  be  ratified  by  the  people,  under 
the  bill. 

In  another  part  of  the  same  speech,  he  says  :  — 

"  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  bill,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  about  submitting 
the  constitution  which  is  to  be  framed,  to  the  people,  for  their  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  the  Convention  would  have  the  right  to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper ; 
but  it  is  certainly  not  compelled  to  do  so,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  If 
it  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  it  will  take  time,  and  it  will  not  be  until  some 
time  next  year  that  this  new  constitution,  affirmed  and  ratified  by  the  people,  would 
be  submitttKl  here  to  Congress  for  its  acceptance  ;  and  what  is  to  be  the  condition  of 
that  people  in  the  mean  time?" 

You  see  that  his  argument  then  was  that  the  Toombs  bill  would  not  get  Kansas 
into  the  Union  quick  enough,  and  was  objectionable  on  that  account.  He  had 
no  fears  about  this  submission,  or  why  did  he  not  introduce  an  amendment  to  meet 
the  case? 

A  voice  :   Why  did  n't  you  %     You  were  Chairman  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Douglas  :    I  will  answer  that  question  for  you. 

In  the  first  place,  no  such  provision  had  ever  before  been  put  in  any  similar  Act 
passed  by  Congress.  I  did  not  iSuppose  that  there  was  an  honest  man  who  would  pre- 
tend that  the  omission  of  such  a  clause  furnished  evidence  of  a  conspiracy  or  attempt 
to  impose  on  the  people.  It  could  not  be  expected  that  such  of  us  as  did  not  think 
that  omission  was  evidence  of  such  a  scheme  would  offer  such  an  amendment ;  but 
if  Trumbull  then  believed  what  he  now  says,  why  did  he  not  offer  the  amendment, 
and  try  to  prevent  it,  when  he  was,  as  he  says,  invited  to  do  so  % 

In  this  connection  I  will  tell  you  what  the  main  point  of  discussion  was  :  There 
was  a  bill  pending  to  admit  Kansas  whenever  she  should  have  a  population  of 
93,420,  that  being  the  ratio  required  for  a  member  of  Congress.  Under  that  bill 
Kansas  could  not  have  become  a  State  for  some  years,  because  she  could  not  have 
had  the  requisite  population.  Mr.  Toombs  took  it  into  his  head  to  bring  in  a  bill  to 
admit  Kansas  then,  with  only  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  people,  and  the  question 
Avas  whether  we  would  allow  Kansas  to  come  in  under  this  bill,  or  keep  her  out 
under  mine  until  she  had  93,420  people.  The  Committee  considered  that  question, 
and  overruled  me,  by  deciding  in  favor  of  the  immediate  admission  of  Kansas,  and  I 
reported  accordingly.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  the  report  which  I  made  at  that 
time.      I  will  read  from  it  :  — 

"  The  point  upon  which  your  Committee  have  entertained  the  most  serious  and 
grave  doubts  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  indorsing  the  proposition,  relates  to  the 
fact  that,  in  the  absence  of  any  census  of  the  iidiabitants,  there  is  reason  to  appre- 
hend that  the  Territory  does  not  contain  sufficient  population  to  entitle  them  to 


200  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

demand  admission  under  the  treaty  with  France,  if  we  take  tlie  ratio  of  representation 
for  a  member  of  Congress  as  the  rule." 

Thus  you  see  that  in  the  written  report  accompanying  the  hill,  I  said  that  the 
great  difficulty  with  the  Committee  was  the  question  of  population.  In  the  same 
report  I  happened  to  refer  to  the  question  of  submission.  Now,  listen  to  what  I  said 
about  that :  — 

"  In  the  opinion  of  your  Committee,  whenever  a  constitution  shall  be  formed  in 
any  Territory,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  justice,  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our  republican  system,  imperatively 
demand  that  the  voice  of  the  people  shall  be  fairly  expressed,  and  their  will  em- 
bodied in  that  fundamental  law,  without  fraud,  or  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any 
other  improper  or  unlawful  influence,  and  subject  to  no  other  restrictions  than  those 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

I  read  this  from  the  report  I  made  at  the  time,  on  the  Toombs  bill.  I  will  read 
yet  another  passage  from  the  same  report ;  after  setting  out  the  features  of  the 
Toombs  bill,  I  contrast  it  with  the  proposition  of  Senator  Seward,  saying  :  — 

"  The  revised  proposition  of  the  Senator  from  Georgia  refers  all  matters  in  dis- 
pute to  the  decision  of  the  present  population,  witli  guarantees  of  fairness  and  safe- 
guards against  frauds  and  violence  to  which  no  reasonable  man  can  find  iust  grounds 
of  exception ;  while  the  Senator  from  New  York,  if  his  proposition  is  designed  to 
recognize  and  impart  vitality  to  the  Topeka  Constitution,  proposes  to  disfranchise,  not 
only  all  the  emigrants  who  have  arrived  in  the  Territory  this  year,  but  all  the  law- 
abiding  men  who  refused  to  join  in  the  act  of  open  rebellion  against  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  Territory  last  year,  by  making  the  unauthorized  and  unlawful 
action  of  a  political  party  the  fundamental  law  of  the  whole  people." 

Then,  again,  I  repeat  that  under  that  bill  the  question  is  to  be  referred  to  the 
present  population  to  decide  for  or  against  coming  into  the  Union  under  the  constitu- 
tion they  may  adopt. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  when  at  Chicago,  rested  his  charge  upon  the  allegation  that  the 
clause  requiring  submission  was  originally  in  the  bill,  and  was  stricken  out  by  me. 
When  that  falsehood  was  exposed  by  a  publication  of  the  record,  he  went  to  Alton 
and  made  another  speech,  repeating  the  charge  and  referring  to  other  and  different 
evidence  to  sustain  it.  He  saw  that  he  was  caught  in  his  first  falsehood,  so  he 
changed  the  issue,  and  instead  of  resting  upon  the  allegation  of  striking  out,  he  made 
it  rest  upon  the  declaration  that  I  had  introduced  a  clause  into  the  bill  prohibiting 
the  people  from  voting  upon  the  constitution.  I  am  told  that  he  made  the  same 
charge  here  that  he  made  at  Alton,  that  I  had  actually  introduced  and  incorporated 
into  the  bill  a  clause  which  prohibited  the  people  from  voting  upon  their  constitu- 
tion. I  hold  his  Alton  speech  in  my  hand,  and  will  read  the  amendment  which  he 
alleges  that  I  offered.     It  is  in  these  words  :  — 

"  And  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  Act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in 
said  Territory." 

Trumbull  says  the  object  of  that  amendment  was  to  prevent  the  Convention  from 
submitting  the  constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  I  will  read  what  he  said  at  Alton 
on  that  subject  :  — 

"  This  clause  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention,  had  it  been  so  disposed, 
to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people  for  adoption  ;  for  it  absolutely  prohibited  the 
holding  of  any  other  election  than  that  for  the  election  of  delegates,  till  that  Act  was 
completely  executed,  which  would  not  have  been  till  Kansas  was  admitted  as  a  State, 
or,  at  all  events,  till  her  constitution  was  fully  prepared  and  ready  for  submission  to 
Congress  for  admission." 

Now,  do  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Trumbull  supposed  that  that  clause  prohibited  the 
Convention  from  submitting  the  constitution  to  the  people,  when,  in  his  speech  in 
the  Senate,  he  declared  that  the  Convention  had  a  riglit  to  submit  it  1  In  his  Alton 
speech,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  extract  which  I  have  read,  he  declared  that  the  clause 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  201 

put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  Convention  to  submit  the  constitution,  and  in  his  speech 
in  the  Senate  he  said  :  — 

"  There  is  nothing  said  in  this  hill,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered,  about  submitting 
the  constitution  which  is  to  be  formed,  to  the  people,  for  tlieir  sanction  or  rejection. 
Perhaps  tlie  Convention  could  have  the  right  to  submit  it,  if  it  should  think  proper, 
but  it  is  certainly  not  compelled  to  do  so  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill." 

Thus  you  see  that,  in  Congress,  he  declared  the  bill  to  be  silent  on  the  subject,  and 
a  few  days  since,  at  Alton,  he  made  a  speech  and  said  that  there  was  a  provision  in 
tlie  bill  prohibiting  submission. 

I  have  two  answers  to  make  to  that.  In  the  first  place,  the  amendment  which  he 
quotes  as  depriving  the  people  of  an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  the  constitution  was 
stricken  out  on  my  motion,  —  absolutely  stricken  out,  and  not  voted  on  at  all !  In  the 
second  place,  in  lieu  of  it,  a  provision  was  voted  in,  authorizing  the  Convention  to 
order  an  election  whenever  it  pleased.  I  will  read.  After  Trumbull  had  made  his 
speech  in  the  Senate,  declaring  that  the  constitution  would  probably  be  submitted  to 
the  people,  although  the  bill  was  silent  upon  that  subject,  I  made  a  few  remarks,  and 
offered  two  amendments,  which  you  may  find  in  the  Appendix  to  the  "Congressional 
Globe,"  volume  thirty-three,  first  session  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  page  795.  I 
quote  :  — 

"  Mr.  Douglas  :  I  have  an  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee  on  Territories. 
On  page  8,  section  II,  sti-tke  out  the  words  '  until  the  complete  execution  of  this  act 
no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory,'  and  insert  the  amendment  which  I 
hold  in  my  hand." 

The  amendment  was  as  follows  :  — 

"  That  all  persons  who  shall  possess  the  other  qualifications  prescribed  for  voters 
under  this  Act,  and  who  shall  have  been  bona  fide  inliabitants  of  said  Territory  since 
its  organization,  and  who  shall  have  absented  themselves  therefrom  in  consequence  of 
the  disturbances  therein,  and  who  shall  return  before  the  first  day  of  October  next, 
and  become  bona  fide  inhabitants  of  the  Territory,  with  the  intent  of  making  it  their 
permanent  home,  and  shall  present  satisfactory  evidence  of  these  facts  to  the  Board  of 
Commissioners,  sliall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  said  election,  and  shall  have  their  names 
placed  on  said  corrected  list  of  voters  for  that  purpose." 

That  amendment  was  adopted  unanimously.  After  its  adoption,  the  record  shows 
the  following :  — 

"  Mr.  Douglas  :  I  have  another  amendment  to  offer  from  the  Committee,  to  follow 
the  amendment  which  has  been  adopted.  The  bill  reads  now,  '  And  until  tlie  com- 
plete execution  of  this  Act,  no  other  election  shall  be  held  in  said  Territory.'  It  has 
been  suggested  that  it  should  be  modified  in  this  way,  '  And  to  avoid  all  conflict  in 
the  complete  execution  of  this  Act,  all  other  elections  in  said  Territory  are  hereby 
postponed  until  such  time  as  said  Convention  shall  appoint,'  so  that  they  can  ap)point 
the  day  in  the  event  that  there  should  be  a  failure  to  come  into  the  Union." 
This  amendment  was  also  agreed  to,  without  dissent. 

Thus  you  see  that  the  amendment  quoted  by  Trumbull  at  Alton  as  evidence 
against  me,  instead  of  being  put  into  the  bill  by  me,  was  stricken  out  on  my  motion, 
and  never  became  a  part  thereof  at  all.  You  also  see  that  the  substituted  clause 
expressly  authorized  the  Convention  to  appoint  such  day  of  election  as  it  should 
deem  proper. 

Mr.  Trumbull  when  he  made  that  speech  knew  these  facts.  He  forged  his  evi- 
dence from  beginning  to  end,  and  by  falsifying  the  record  he  endeavors  to  bolster  up 
his  false  charge.  I  ask  you  what  you  think  of  Trumbull  thus  going  around  the  coun- 
try, falsifying  and  garbling  the  public  records.  I  ask  you  whether  you  will  sustain  a 
man  who  will  descend  to  the  infamy  of  such  conduct. 

Mr.  Douglas  proceeded  to  remark  that  he  should  not  hereaiter  occupy  his  time  in 
refuting  such  charges  made  by  Trumbull,  but  that,  Lincoln  having  indorsed  the 
character  of  Trumbull  for  veracity,  he  should  hold  him  [Lincoln]  responsible  for  the 
slanders. 

26 


202  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

FIFTH   JOINT   DEBATE,   AT   GALESBURGH, 

October  7,  1858. 

MR.   DOUGLAS'S   SPEECH. 

La-DIES  and  Gentlemen  :  Four  years  ago  I  appeared  before  the  people  of 
Knox  County  for  the  purpose  of  defending  my  political  action  upon  the  Com- 
promise Measures  of  1850  and  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 
Those  of  you  before  me  who  were  present  then  will  remember  that  I  vindi- 
cated myself  for  supporting  those  two  measures  by  the  fact  that  they  rested 
upon  the  great  fundamental  principle  that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each 
Territory  of  this  Union  have  the  right,  and  ought  to  be  permitted  to  exercise 
the  right,  of  regulating  their  own  domestic  concerns  in  their  own  way,  subject 
to  no  other  limitation  or  restriction  than  that  wdiich  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  imposes  upon  them.  I  then  called  upon  the  people  of  Illinois 
to  decide  whether  that  principle  of  self-government  was  right  or  wrong.  If  it 
was  and  is  right,  then  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850  were  right,  and  con- 
sequently, the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  based  upon  the  same  principle,  must 
necessarily  have  been  right. 

The  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  declared,  in  so  many  words,  that  it  was  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State 
or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  per- 
fectly free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way, 
subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  For  the  last  four  years 
I  have  devoted  all  my  energies,  in  private  and  public,  to  commend  that  princi- 
ple to  the  American  people.  Whatever  else  may  be  said  in  condemnation  or 
support  of  my  political  course,  I  apprehend  that  no  honest  man  will  doubt 
the  fidelity  with  which,  under  all  circumstances,  I  have  stood  by  it. 

During  the  last  year  a  question  arose  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
whether  or  not  that  principle  would  be  violated  by  the  admission  of  Kansas 
into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  In  my  opinion,  the  at- 
tempt to  force  Kansas  in  under  that  constitution  was  a  gross  violation  of  the 
principle  enunciated  in  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850,  and  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  of  1854,  and  therefore  I  led  off  in  the  fight  against  the  Lecomp- 
ton Constitution,  and  conducted  it  until  the  effort  to  carry  that  constitution 
through  Congress  was  abandoned.  And  I  can  appeal  to  all  men,  friends  and 
foes.  Democrats  and  Republicans,  Northern  men  and  Southern  men,  that 
during  the  whole  of  that  fight  I  carried  the  banner  of  Popular  Sovereignty 
aloft,  and  never  allowed  it  to  trail  in  the  dust,  or  lowered  my  flag  until  vic- 
tory perched  upon  our  arms.  When  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  defeated, 
the  question  arose  in  the  minds  of  those  who  had  advocated  it  what  they 
should  next  resort  to  in  order  to  carry  out  their  views.  They  devised  a 
measure  known  as  the  English  bill,  and  granted  a  general  amnesty  and  politi- 
cal pardon  to  all  men  who  had  fought  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution, 
provided  they  would  support  that  bill.  I  for  one  did  not  choose  to  accept  the 
pardon,  or  to  avail  myself  of  the  amnesty  granted  on  that  condition.  The 
fact  that  the  supporters  of  Lecompton  were  willing  to  forgive  all  differences 
of  opinion  at  that  time  in  the  event  those  who  opposed  it  favored  the  Eng- 
lish bill,  was  an  admission  they  did  not  think  that  opposition  to  Lecompton 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  203 

impaired  a  man's  standing  in  the  Democratic  party.  Now,  the  qnestion  arisse, 
what  was  that  English  bill  which  certain  men  are  now  attempting  to  make  a  test 
of  political  orthodoxy  in  this  country  ?  It  provided,  in  substance,  that  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  should  be  sent  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for  their 
adoption  or  rejection,  at  an  election  which  was  held  in  August  last,  and  in 
case  they  refused  admission  under  it,  that  Kansas  should  be  kept  out  of  the 
Union  until  she  had  93,420  inhabitants.  I  was  in  favor  of  sending  the  con- 
stitution back  in  order  to  enable  the  people  to  say  whether  or  not  it  was  their 
act  and  deed,  and  embodied  their  will;  but  the  other  proposition,  that  if  tliey 
refused  to  come  into  the  Union  under  it,  they  should  be  kept  out  until  they 
had  double  or  treble  the  population  they  then  had,  I  never  would  sanction 
by  my  vote.  The  reason  why  I  could  not  sanction  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  by  the  English  bill,  if  the  people  of  Kansas  had  only  agreed  to  become 
a  slaveholding  State  under  tlie  Lecompton  Constitution,  they  could  have  done 
so  with  35,000  people,  but  if  they  insisted  on  being  a  Free  State,  as  they  had  a 
right  to  do,  then  they  were  to  be  punished  by  being  kept  out  of  the  Union  until 
they  had  nearly  three  times  that  population.  I  then  said  in  my  place  in  the 
Senate,  as  I  now  say  to  you,  that  whenever  Kansas  has  population  enough  for 
a  Slave  State  she  has  population  enough  for  a  Free  State.  I  have  never  yet 
given  a  vote,  and  I  never  intend  to  record  one,  making  an  odious  and  unjust 
distinction  between  the  different  States  of  this  Union.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  funda- 
mental principle  in  our  republican  form  of  government  that  all  the  States  of 
this  Union,  old  and  new,  free  and  slave,  stand  on  an  exact  equality.  Equality 
among  the  different  States  is  a  cardinal  principle  on  which  all  our  institutions 
rest.  Wherever,  therefore,  you  make  a  discrimination,  saying  to  a  Slave  State 
that  it  shall  be  admitted  with  35,000  inhabitants,  and  to  a  Free  State  that 
it  sliall  not  be  admitted  until  it  has  93,000  or  100,000  inhabitants,  you  are 
throwing  the  whole  weight  of  the  Federal  Government  into  the  scale  in  favor 
of  one  class  of  States  against  the  other.  Nor  would  I,  on  tlie  other  hand,  any 
sooner  sanction  the  doctrine  that  a  Free  State  could  be  admitted  into  the 
Union  with  35,000  people,  while  a  Slave  State  was  kept  out  until  it  had 
93,000.  I  have  always  declared  in  the  Senate  my  willingness,  and  I  am  will- 
ing now  to  adopt  the  rule,  that  no  Territory  shall  ever  become  a  State  until  it 
has  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  according  to  the  then 
existing  ratio.  But  while  I  have  always  been,  and  am  now,  willing  to  adopt 
that  general  rule,  I  was  not  willing  and  would  not  consent  to  make  an  excep- 
tion of  Kansas,  as  a  punishment  for  her  obstinacy  in  demanding  the  right  to 
do  as  she  pleased  in  the  formation  of  her  constitution.  It  is  proper  that  I 
should  remark  here,  that  my  opposition  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  did  not 
rest  upon  the  peculiar  position  taken  by  Kansas  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I 
held  then,  and  hold  now,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  Slave  State,  it  is 
their  right  to  make  one,  and  be  received  into  the  Union  under  it ;  if,  on  the 
contrary,  they  want  a  Free  State,  it  is  their  right  to  have  it,  and  no  man  should 
ever  oppose  their  admission  because  they  ask  it  under  the  one  or  the  other. 
I  hold  to  tliat  great  principle  of  self-government  which  asserts  the  right  of 
every  people  to  decide  for  themselves  the  nature  and  character  of  the  domes- 
tic institutions  and  fundamental  law  under  which  they  are  to  live. 

The  effort  has  been  and  is  now  being  made  in  this  State  by  certain  post- 
masters and  other  Federal  office-holders  to  make  a  test  of  faith  on  the  support 
of  the  English  bill.  These  men  are  now  making  speeches  all  over  the  State 
against  me  and  in  favor  of  Lincoln,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  because  I 
would  not  sanction  a  discrimination  between  Slave  and  Free  States  by  voting 


204  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

for  the  English  Lilh     But  while  that  bill  is  made  a  test  in  Illinois  for  tlie  pur- 
pose of  breaking  up  the  Democratic  organization  in  this  State,  liow  is  it  in  the 
other  States  ?     Go  to  Indiana,  and  there  you  find  English  liimself,  the  author 
of  the  English  bill,  who  is  a  candidate  for  re-election  to  Congress,  has  been 
forced  by  public  opinion  to  abandon  his  own  darling  project,  and  to  give  a 
promise  that  he  will  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  at  once,  whenever  she 
forms  a  constitution  in  pursuance  of  law,  and  ratifies  it  by  a  majority  vote  of 
her  people.     Not  only  is  this  the  case  with  English  himself,  but  I  am  informed 
that  every  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  Indiana  takes   the  same 
ground.     Pass  to  Ohio,  and  there  you  find  that  Groesbeck,  and  Pendleton,  and 
Cox,  and  all  the  other  anti-Lecompton  men  who  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder 
with  me  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  but  voted  for  the  English  bill, 
now  repudiate  it  and  take  the  same  ground  that  I  do  on  that  question.     So  it 
is  with  the  Joneses  and  others  of  Pennsylvania,  and  so  it  is  with  every  other 
Lecompton    Democrat   in    the   Eree   States.     They   now  abandon   even  the 
English  bill,  and  come  back  to  the  true  platform  which  I  proclaimed  at  the 
time  in  the  Senate,  and  upon  which  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  now  stand. 
And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  every  Lecompton  and  anti-Lecompton 
Democrat  in  the  Free  States  has  abandoned  the  English  bill,  you  are  told 
that  it  is  to  be  made  a  test  upon  me,  while  the  power  and  patronage  of  the 
Government  are  all  exerted  to  elect  men  to  Congress  in  the  other  States  who 
occupy  the  same  position  with  reference  to  it  that  I  do.     It  seems  that  my 
political  offence  consists  in  the  fact  that  I  first  did  nob  vote  for  the  English 
bill,  and  thus  pledge  myself  to  keep  Kansas  out  of  the  L^nion  until  she  has  a 
population  of  93,420,  and  then  return  home,  violate  that  pledge,  repudiate  the 
bill,  and  take  the  opposite  ground.     If  I  had  done  this,  perhaps  the  Adminis- 
tration would  now  be  advocating  my  re-election,  as  it  is  that  of  the  others 
who  have  pursued  this  course.     I  did  not  choose  to  give  that  pledge,  for  the 
reason  that  I  did  not  intend  to  carry  out  that  principle.     I  never  will  consent, 
for  the  sake  of  conciliating  the  frowns  of  power,  to  pledge  myself  to  do  that 
which  I  do  not  intend  to  perform.     I  now  submit  the  question  to  you,  as  my 
constituency,  whether  I  was  not  right,  first,  in  resisting  the  adoption  of  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  and,  secondly,  in  resisting  the  English  bilh     I  repeat 
that  I  opposed  the  Lecompton  Constitution  because  it  was  not  the  act  and 
deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will.     I  denied  the 
right  of  any  power  on  earth,  under  our  system  of  government,  to  force  a  con- 
stitution on  an  unwilling  people.     There  was  a  time  when  some  men  could 
pretend  to  believe  that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  embodied  the  will  of  tlie 
people  of  Kansas ;  but  that  time  has  passed.     The  question  was  referred  to 
the  people  of  Kansas  under  the  English  bill  last  August,  and  then,  at  a  fair 
election,  they  rejected  the  Lecompton  Constitution  by  a  vote  of  from  eight  to 
ten  against  it  to  one  in  its  favor.     Since  it  has  been  voted  down  by  so  over- 
whelming a  majority,  no  man  can  pretend  that  it  was  the  act  and  deed  of  that 
people.     I  submit  the  question  to  you  whether  or  not,  if  it  had  not  l^een  for 
me,  that  constitution  would  have  been  crammed  down  the  throats  of  the 
people  of  Kansas  against  their  consent.     While  at  least  ninety-nine  out  of 
every  hundred  people  here  present  agree  that  I  was  right  in  defeating  that 
project,  yet  my  enemies  use  the  fact  that  I  did  defeat  it  by  doing  right,  to  break 
me  down  and  put  another  man  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  my  place.     The 
very  men  who  acknowledge  that  I  was  right  in  defeating  Lecompton  now 
form  an  alliance  with  Federal  office-holders,  professed  Lecompton  men,  to 
defeat  me,  because  1  did  right.     My  political  opponent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  has  no 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  205 

hope  on  earth,  and  has  never  dreamed  that  he  had  a  chance  of  success,  were 
it  not  for  the  aid  that  he  is  receiving  from  Federal  office-holders,  who  are 
using  their  intluence  and  the  patronage  of  the  Government  against  me  in 
revenge  for  my  having  defeated  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  What  do  you 
Eepublicans  think  of  a  political  organization  that  will  try  to  make  an  unholy 
and  unnatural  combination  with  its  professed  foes  to  beat  a  man  merely 
because  he  has  done  right  ?  You  know  such  is  the  fact  with  regard  to  your 
own  party.  You  know  that  the  axe  of  decapitation  is  suspended  over  every 
man  in  office  in  Illinois,  and  the  terror  of  proscription  is  threatened  every 
Democrat  by  the  present  Administration,  unless  he  supports  the  Republican 
ticket  in  preference  to  my  Democratic  associates  and  myself.  I  could  find 
an  instance  in  tlie  postmaster  of  the  city  of  Galesburgh,  and  in  every  other 
postmaster  in  this  vicinity,  all  of  whom  have  been  stricken  down  simply 
because  they  discharged  the  duties  of  their  offices  honestly,  and  supported 
the  regular  Democratic  ticket  in  this  State  in  the  right.  The  Republican 
party  is  availing  itself  of  every  unworthy  means  in  the  present  contest  to 
carry  the  election,  because  its  leaders  know  that  if  they  let  this  chance  slip 
they  will  never  have  another,  and  their  hopes  of  making  this  a  Republican 
State  will  be  blasted  forever. 

Now,  let  me  ask  you  whether  the  country  has  any  interest  in  sustaining 
this  organization,  known  as  the  Republican  party.  That  party  is  unlike  all 
other  political  organizations  in  this  country.  All  other  parties  have  been 
national  in  their  character,  —  have  avowed  their  principles  alike  in  the  Slave 
and  Free  States,  in  Kentucky  as  well  as  Illinois,  in  Louisiana  as  well  as  in 
Massachusetts.  Such  was  the  case  with  the  old  Whig  party,  and  such  was 
and  is  the  case  with  the  Democratic  party.  Wi]igs  and  Democrats  could  pro- 
claim their  principles  boldly  and  fearlessly  in  the  North  and  in  the  South,  in 
the  East  and  in  the  West,  wherever  the  Constitution  ruled,  and  the  American 
flag  waved  over  American  soil. 

But  now  you  have  a  sectional  organization,  a  party  which  appeals  to  the 
Northern  section  of  the  Union  against  the  Southern,  a  party  which  appeals  to 
Northern  passion,  Northern  pride,  Nortliern  ambition,  and  Northern  prejudices, 
against  Southern  people,  the  Southern  States,  and  Southern  institutions.  The 
leaders  of  that  party  hope  tliat  they  will  be  able  to  unite  the  Northern  States 
in  one  great  sectional  party  ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  North  is  the  strongest  sec- 
tion, tliat  they  will  thus  be  enabled  to  out-vote,  conquer,  govern,  and  control 
the  South.  Hence  you  find  that  they  now  make  speeches  advocating  princi- 
ples and  measures  which  cannot  be  defended  in  any  slaveholding  State  of  this 
Union.  Is  there  a  Republican  residing  in  Galesburgh  who  can  travel  into 
Kentucky  and  carry  his  principles  with  him  across  the  Ohio  ?  What  Repub- 
lican from  Massachusetts  can  visit  the  Old  Dominion  without  leaving  his  prin- 
ciples behind  him  when  he  crosses  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  ?  Permit  me  to 
say  to  you  in  perfect  good-humor,  but  in  all  sincerity,  that  no  political  creed  is 
sound  which  cannot  be  proclaimed  fearlessly  in  every  State  of  this  Union 
where  the  Federal  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Not  only  is 
this  Republican  party  unable  to  proclaim  its  principles  alike  in  the  North  and 
in  the  South,  in  the  Free  States  and  in  the  Slave  States,  but  it  cannot  even 
proclaim  them  in  the  same  forms  and  give  them  the  same  strength  and  mean- 
ing in  all  parts  of  the  same  State.  My  friend  Lincoln  finds  it  extremely  dif- 
ficult to  manage  a  debate  in  the  centre  part  of  the  State,  where  there  is  a 
mixture  of  men  from  the  North  and  the  South.  In  the  extreme  northern  part 
of  Illinois  he  can  proclaim  as  bold  and  radical  Abolitionism  as  ever  Giddings, 


206  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Lovejoy,  or  Garrison  enunciated  ;  but  when  he  r^ets  down  a  little  further  south 
he  claims  that  he  is  an  old  line  Whi,L>-,  a  disciple  of  Henry  Clay,  and  declares 
that  he  still  adheres  to  the  old  line  Whig  creed,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  Abolitionism,  or  negro  equality,  or  negro  citizenship.  I  once  before 
hinted  this  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  a  public  speech,  and  at  Charleston  he  defied 
me  to  show  that  there  was  any  difference  between  his  speeches  in  the  North 
and  in  the  South,  and  that  they  were  not  in  strict  harmony.  I  will  now  call 
your  attention  to  two  of  them,  and  you  can  then  say  whether  you  would  be 
apt  to  believe  that  the  same  man  ever  uttered  both.  In  a  speech  in  reply  to 
me  at  Chicago  in  July  last,  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  speaking  of  the  equality  of  the 
negro  with  the  white  man,  used  the  following  language :  — 

"  I  should  hke  to  know,  if,  taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Lidependence,  which 
declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where 
will  it  stop]  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not  another  man 
say  it  does  not  mean  another  man  "?  If  the  Declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get 
the  statute  book  in  which  we  find  it,  and  tear  it  out.  Who  is  so  bold  as  to  do  it] 
If  it  is  not  true,  let  us  tear  it  out." 

You  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  there  proposed  that  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence,  declaring  all  men  to  be  born  equal,  did  not  include  the 
negro  and  put  him  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  that  we  should  take 
the  statute  book  and  tear  it  out.  He  there  took  the  ground  that  the  negro 
race  is  included  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  the  equal  of  the  white 
race,  and  that  there  coi;ld  be  no  such  thing  as  a  distinction  in  the  races,  making 
one  superior  and  the  other  inferior.     I  read  now  from  the  same  speech  :  — 

"  My  friends  [he  says],  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desire  to  do,  and 
I  have  only  to  say,  let  us  discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  other 
man,  this  race  and  that  race  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they 
must  be  placed  in  an  inferior  position,  discarding  our  standard  that  we  have  left  us. 
Let  us  discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout  this  land,  until 
we  shall  once  more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created  equak" 

["  That 's  right,"  etc.] 

Yes,  I  have  no  douljt  that  you  think  it  is  right ;  but  the  Lincoln  men  down 
in  Coles,  Tazewell,  and  Sangamon  counties  do  not  tliink  it  is  right.  In  the 
conclusion  of  the  same  speech,  talking  to  the  Chicago  Abolitionists,  he  said  : 
"  I  leave  you,  hoping  that  the  lamp  of  liberty  will  burn  in  your  bosoms  until 
there  shall  no  longer  be  a  doubt  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal." 
["  Good,  good."]  Well,  you  say  good  to  that,  and  you  are  going  to  vote  for 
Lincoln  because  he  holds  that  doctrine.  I  will  not  blame  you  for  supporting 
him  on  that  ground,  but  I  will  show  you,  in  immediate  contrast  with  that 
doctrine,  what  Mr.  Lincoln  said  down  in  Egypt  in  order  to  get  votes  in  that 
locality,  where  they  do  not  hold  to  such  a  doctrine.  In  a  joint  discussion 
between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself,  at  Charleston,  I  think,  on  the  18th  of  last 
month,  Mr.  Lincoln,  referring  to  this  subject,  used  the  following  language  :  — 

"  I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not,  nor  never  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races ;  that  I  am 
not,  nor  never  have  been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  of  the  free  negroes,  or  jurors,  or 
qiialifying  them  to  hold  office,  or  having  them  to  marry  with  white  people.  I  will 
say,  in  addition,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and  black 
races  which,  I  suppose,  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races  living  together  upon  terms 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  207 

of  social  and  political  equality  ;  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  that  while  they 
do  remain  together  tliere  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior,  that  I  as 
much  as  any  other  man  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position  being  assigned  to  the 
white  man." 

["  Good  for  Lincoln."] 

Fellow-citizens,  here  you  find  men  hurraing  for  Lincoln,  and  saying  that  he 
did  right,  when  in  one  part  of  the  State  he  stood  up  for  negro  equality,  and  in 
another  part,  for  political  effect,  discarded  the  doctrine,  and  declared  that  there 
always  must  be  a  superior  and  inferior  race.  Abolitionists  up  North  are  expected 
and  required  to  vote  for  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for  the  equality  of  the  races, 
holding  that  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the  white  man  and  the  negro 
were  created  ec[ual,  and  endowed  by  the  divine  law  with  that  equality,  and 
down  South  he  tells  the  old  Whigs,  the  Kentuckians,  Virginians,  and  Ten- 
nesseeans,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  in  the  races,  making  one  superior 
and  the  other  inferior,  and  that  he  is  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  superiority 
of  the  white  race  over  the  negro.  Now,  how  can  you  reconcile  those  two 
positions  of  Mr.  Lincoln  ?  He  is  to  be  voted  for  in  the  South  as  a  pro-slavery 
man,  and  he  is  to  be  voted  for  in  the  North  as  an  Abolitionist.  Up  here  he 
thinks  it  is  all  nonsense  to  talk  about  a  difference  between  the  races,  and  says 
that  we  must  "  discard  all  quibbling  about  this  race  and  that  race  and  the 
other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be  placed  in  an  inferior 
position."  Down  South  he  makes  this  "  quibble  "  about  tliis  race  and  that  race 
and  the  other  race  being  inferior  as  the  creed  of  his  party,  and  declares  that  the 
negro  can  never  be  elevated  to  the  position  of  the  white  man.  You  find  that 
his  political  meetings  are  called  by  different  names  in  different  counties  in  the 
State.  Here  they  are  called  Eepublican  meetings  ;  but  in  old  Tazewell,  where 
Lincoln  made  a  speech  last  Tuesday,  he  did  not  address  a  Hcpiiblican  meeting, 
but  "a  grand  rally  of  the  Lincoln  men."  There  are  very  few  Republicans 
there,  because  Tazewell  County  is  filled  with  old  Virginians  and  Kentuckians, 
all  of  whom  are  Whigs  or  Democrats ;  and  if  Mr.  Lincoln  had  called  an  Aboli- 
tion or  Eepublican  meeting  there,  he  would  not  get  many  votes.  Go  down 
into  Egypt,  and  you  find  tliat  he  and  his  party  are  operating  under  an  alias 
there,  which  his  friend  Trumbull  has  given  them,  in  order  that  they  may  cheat 
the  people.  When  I  was  down  in  Monroe  County  a  few  weeks  ago,  addressing 
the  people,  I  saw  handbills  posted  announcing  that  Mr.  Trumbull  was  going 
to  speak  in  behalf  of  Lincoln ;  and  what  do  you  think  the  name  of  his  party 
was  there?  Why,  the  "Free  Democracy."  Mr.  Trumbull  and  Mr.  Jehu  Baker 
were  announced  to  address  the  Free  Democracy  of  Monroe  County,  and  the 
bill  was  signed,  "Many  Free  Democrats."  The  reason  that  Lincoln  and  his 
party  adopted  the  name  of  "Free  Democracy"  down  there  was  because  Mon- 
roe County  has  always  been  an  old-fashioned  Democratic  county,  and  hence  it 
was  necessary  to  make  the  people  believe  that  they  were  Democrats,  sympa- 
thized with  tliera,  and  were  fighting  for  Lincoln  as  Democrats.  Come  up  to 
Springfield,  where  Lincoln  now  lives  and  always  has  lived,  and  you  find  that 
the  Convention  of  his  party  which  assembled  to  nominate  candidates  for 
Legislature,  who  are  expected  to  vote  for  him  if  elected,  dare  not  adopt  the 
name  of  Eepublican,  but  assembled  under  the  title  of  "all  opposed  to  the 
Democracy."  Thus  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  creed  cannot  travel  through 
even  one  half  of  the  counties  of  this  State,  but  that  it  changes  its  hues  and 
becomes  lighter  and  lighter  as  it  travels  from  the  extreme  north,  until  it  is 
nearly  white  when  it  reaches  the  extreme  south  end  of  the  State. 


208  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

I  ask  you,  my  friends,  why  cannot  Eepublicans  avow  their  principles  alike 
everywhere  ?  I  would  despise  myself  if  I  thought  that  I  was  procuring  your 
votes  by  concealing  my  opinions,  and  by  avowing  one  set  of  principles  in  one 
part  of  the  State,  and  a  different  set  in  another  part.  If  I  do  not  truly  and 
honorably  represent  your  feelings  and  principles,  then  I  ought  not  to  be  your 
senator ;  and  I  will  never  conceal  my  opinions,  or  modify  or  change  them  a 
hair's  breadth,  in  order  to  get  votes.  I  tell  you  that  this  Chicago  doctrine  of 
Lincoln's  —  declaring  that  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are  made  equal  by 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  by  Divine  Providence — is  a  monstrous 
heresy.  The  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  never  dreamed  of 
the  negro  when  they  were  writing  that  document.  They  referred  to  white 
men,  to  men  of  European  birth  and  European  descent,  when  they  declared  the 
equality  of  all  men.  I  see  a  gentleman  there  in  the  crowd  shaking  his  head. 
Let  me  remind  him  that  when  Thomas  Jefferson  wrote  that  document,  he  was 
the  owner,  and  so  continued  until  his  death,  of  a  large  number  of  slaves.  Did 
he  intend  to  say  in  that  Declaration  that  his  negro  slaves,  which  he  held  and 
treated  as  property,  were  created  his  equals  by  divine  law,  and  that  he  was 
violating  the  law  of  God  every  day  of  his  life  by  holding  them  as  slaves  ?  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  when  that  Declaration  was  put  forth,  every  one 
of  the  thirteen  Colonies  were  slaveholding  Colonies,  and  every  man  who  signed 
that  instrument  represented  a  slaveholding  constituency.  Recollect,  also,  that 
no  one  of  them  emancipated  his  slaves,  much  less  put  them  on  an  equality  with 
himself,  after  he  signed  the  Declaration.  On  the  contrary,  they  all  continued 
to  hold  their  negroes  as  slaves  during  the  Eevolutionary  War.  Now,  do  you 
believe  —  are  you  willing  to  have  it  said  —  that  every  man  who  signed  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  declared  the  negro  his  equal,  and  then  was 
hypocrite  enough  to  continue  to  hold  him  as  a  slave,  in  violation  of  what 
he  believed  to  be  the  divine  law  ?  And  yet  when  you  say  that  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  includes  the  negro,  you  charge  the  signers  of  it  with 
hypocrisy. 

I  say  to  you,  frankly,  that  in  ray  opinion  this  government  was  made  by 
our  fathers  on  the  white  basis.  It  was  made  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of 
white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  was  intended  to  be  administered 
by  white  men  in  all  time  to  come.  But  while  I  hold  that  under  our  Consti- 
tution and  political  system  the  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  cannot  be  a  citizen,  and 
ought  not  to  be  a  citizen,  it  does  not  follow  by  any  means  that  he  should  be 
a  slave.  On  the  contrary,  it  does  follow  that  the  negro,  as  an  inferior  race, 
ought  to  possess  every  right,  every  privilege,  every  immunity,  which  he  can 
safely  exercise,  consistent  with  the  safety  of  the  society  in  which  he  lives. 
Humanity  requires,  and  Christianity  commands,  that  you  shall  extend  to 
every  inferior  being,  and  every  dependent  being,  all  the  privileges,  immuni- 
ties, and  advantages  which  can  be  granted  to  them,  consistent  with  the  safety  of 
society.  If  you  ask  me  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  privileges,  I  answer  that 
that  is  a  question  which  the  people  of  each  State  must  decide  for  themselves. 
Illinois  has  decided  that  question  for  herself  We  have  said  that  in  this  State 
the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  nor  shall  he  be  a  citizen.  Kentucky  holds  a 
different  doctrine.  New  York  holds  one  different  from  either,  and  Maine  one 
different  from  all.  Virginia,  in  her  policy  on  this  question,  differs  in  many 
respects  from  the  others,  and  so  on,  until  there  are  hardly  two  States  whose 
policy  is  exactly  alike  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  white  man  and  the 
negro.  Nor  can  you  reconcile  them  and  make  them  alike.  Each  State  must 
do  as  it  pleases.     Illinois  had  as  much  right  to  adopt  the  policy  which  we 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  209 

have  on  that  .subject  as  Kentucky  had  to  adopt  a  different  policy.  The  great 
principle  of  this  government  is,  that  each  State  has  the  right  to  do  as  it 
pleases  on  all  these  questions,  and  no  other  State  or  power  on  earth  has  the 
right  to  interfere  with  us,  or  complain  of  us  merely  because  our  system  differs 
from  theirs.  In  the  Compromise  ]\Ieasures  of  1850,  Mr.  Clay  declared  that 
this  great  principle  ought  to  exist  in  the  Territories  as  well  as  in  the  States, 
and  I  reasserted  his  doctrine  in  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  1854. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  be  made  to  understand,  and  those  who  are  deter- 
mined to  vote  for  him,  no  matter  whether  he  is  a  pro-slavery  man  in  the  South 
and  a  negro  equality  advocate  in  the  North,  cannot  be  made  to  understand 
how  it  is  that  in  a  Territory  the  people  can  do  as  they  please  on  the  slavery 
question  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Let  us  see  whether  I  cannot  explain 
it  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  impartial  men.  Chief  Justice  Taney  has  said,  in 
his  opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  that  a  negro  slave,  being  property,  stands 
on  an  equal  footing  with  other  property,  and  that  the  owner  may  carry  them 
into  United  States  territory  the  same  as  he  does  other  property.  Suppose  any 
two  of  you,  neighbors,  should  conclude  to  go  to  Kansas,  one  carrying  $100,000 
worth  of  negro  slaves,  and  the  other  $100,000  worth  of  mixed  merchandise, 
including  quantities  of  liquors.  You  both  agree  that  under  that  decision  you 
may  carry  your  property  to  Kansas ;  but  when  you  get  it  there,  the  merchant 
who  is  possessed  of  the  liquors  is  met  by  the  Maine  liquor  law,  which  pro- 
hibits the  sale  or  use  of  his  property,  and  the  owner  of  the  slaves  is  met  by 
equally  unfriendly  legislation,  which  makes  his  property  worthless  after  he 
gets  it  there.  What  is  the  right  to  carry  your  property  into  the  Territory 
worth  to  either,  when  unfriendly  legislation  in  the  Territory  renders  it  worthless 
after  you  get  it  there  ?  The  slaveholder  when  he  gets  his  slaves  there  finds  that 
there  is  no  local  law  to  protect  him  in  holding  them,  no  slave  code,  no  police 
regulation  maintaining  and  supporting  him  in  his  right,  and  he  discovers  at  once 
that  the  absence  of  such  friendly  legislation  excludes  his  property  from  the 
Territory  just  as  irresistibly  as  if  there  was  a  positive  Constitutional  prohibi- 
tion excluding  it.  Thus  you  find  it  is  with  any  kind  of  property  in  a  Terri- 
tory:  it  depends  for  its  protection  on  the  local  and  numicipal  law.  If  the 
people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery,  they  make  friendly  legislation  to  introduce 
it ;  but  if  they  do  not  want  it,  they  withhold  all  protection  from  it,  and  then 
it  cannot  exist  there.  Such  was  the  view  taken  on  the  subject  by  different 
Southern  men  when  the  Nebraska  bill  passed.  See  the  speech  of  Mr.  Orr,  of 
South  Carolina,  the  present  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  of  Con- 
gress, made  at  that  time ;  and  there  you  will  find  this  whole  doctrine  argued 
out  at  full  length.  Read  the  speeches  of  other  Southern  Congressmen,  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives,  made  in  1854,  and  you  will  find  that  they  took  the 
same  view  of  the  subject  as  Mr.  Orr,  —  that  slavery  could  never  be  forcetl  on 
a  people  who  did  not  want  it.  I  hold  that  in  this  country  there  is  no  power 
on  the  face  of  the  globe  that  can  force  any  institution  on  an  unwilling  people. 
The  great  fundamental  principle  of  our  government  is  that  the  people  of  each 
State  and  each  Territory  shall  be  left  perfectly  free  to  decide  for  themselves 
what  shall  be  the  nature  and  character  of  their  institutions.  When  this  gov- 
ernment was  made,  it  was  based  on  that  principle.  At  the  time  of  its  forma- 
tion there  were  twelve  slaveholding  States  and  one  free  State  in  this  Union. 
Suppose  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Republicans,  of  uniformity  of 
laws  of  all  the  States  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  had  prevailed  ;  suppose  Mr. 
Lincoln  himself  had  been  a  member  of  the  Convention  which  framed  the 
Constitution,  and  that  he  had  risen  in  that  august  body,  and,  addressing  the 

27 


210  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

father  of  his  country,  had  said  as  he  did  at  Springfield  :  "  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure  per- 
manently, half  slave  and  half  free  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved, 
I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  "will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other."  "What  do  yon  think  would 
have  been  the  result?  Suppose  he  had  made  that  Convention  believe  that 
doctrine,  and  they  had  acted  upon  it,  what  do  you  think  would  have  been  the 
result  ?  Do  you  believe  that  the  one  Free  State  would  have  outvoted  the  twelve 
slaveholding  States,  and  thus  abolish  slavery  ?  On  the  contrary,  would  not 
the  twelve  slaveholding  States  have  outvoted  the  one  Free  State,  and  under 
his  doctrine  have  fastened  slavery  by  an  irrevocable  constitutional  provision 
upon  every  inch  of  the  American  Eepublic  ?  Thus  you  see  that  the  doctrine  he 
now  advocates,  if  proclaimed  at  the  beginning  of  the  government,  would  have 
established  slavery  everywhere  throughout  the  American  continent ;  and  are 
you  willing,  now  that  we  have  the  majority  section,  to  exercise  a  power  which 
we  never  would  have  submitted  to  when  we  were  in  the  minority  ?  If  the 
Southern  States  had  attempted  to  control  our  institutions,  and  make  the 
States  all  slave,  when  they  had  the  power,  I  ask  would  you  have  submitted  to 
it  ?  If  you  would  not,  are  you  willing,  now  that  we  have  become  the  strong- 
est under  that  great  principle  of  self-government  that  allows  each  State  to  do 
as  it  pleases,  to  attempt  to  control  the  Southern  institutions  ?  Then,  my 
friends,  I  say  to  you  that  there  is  but  one  path  of  peace  in  this  Eepublic,  and 
that  is  to  administer  this  government  as  our  fathers  made  it,  divided  into  Free 
and  Slave  States,  allowing  each  State  to  decide  for  itself  whether  it  wants 
slavery  or  not.  If  Illinois  will  settle  the  slavery  question  for  herself,  and  mind 
her  own  business  and  let  her  neighbors  alone,  we  will  be  at  peace  with  Ken- 
tucky and  every  other  Southern  State.  If  every  other  State  in  the  Union  will 
do  the  same,  there  will  be  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South,  and  in  the 
whole  Union. 


MR.    LINCOLN'S   REPLY. 

My  Fellow-Citizexs  :  A  very  large  portion  of  the  speech  whicli  Judge 
Douglas  has  addressed  to  you  has  previously  been  delivered  and  put  in  print. 
I  do  not  mean  that  for  a  hit  upon  the  Judge  at  all.  If  I  had  not  been  inter- 
rupted, I  was  going  to  say  that  such  an  answer  as  I  was  able  to  make  to  a 
very  large  portion  of  it,  had  already  been  more  than  once  made  and  pub- 
lished. There  has  been  an  opportunity  afforded  to  the  public  to  see  our 
respective  views  upon  the  topics  discussed  in  a  large  portion  of  the  speech 
which  he  has  just  delivered.  I  make  these  remarks  for  the  purpose  of  excus- 
ing myself  for  not  passing  over  the  entire  ground  that  the  Judge  has  trav- 
ersed. I  however  desire  to  take  up  some  of  the  points  tliat  he  has  attended 
to,  and  ask  your  attention  to  them,  and  I  shall  follow  him  backwards  upon 
some  notes  which  I  have  taken,  reversing  the  order,  by  beginning  where  he 
concluded. 

The  Judge  has  alluded  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  insisted 
that  negroes  are  not  included  in  that  Declaration ;  and  that  it  is  a  slander 
upon  the  framers  of  that  instrument  to  suppose  that  negroes  were  meant 
therein  ;  and  he  asks  you  :  Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  who 
penned  the  immortal  paper,  could  have  supposed  himself  applying  the  Ian- 


AND   STEPHEN    A    DOUGLAS.  211 

guage  of  that  instrument  to  the  negro  race,  and  yet  held  a  portion  of  that 
race  in  slavery  ?  Would  he  not  at  once  have  freed  them  ?  I  only  have  to 
remark  upon  this  part  of  the  Judge's  speech  (and  that,  too,  very  brietly,  for 
I  shall  not  detain  myself,  or  you,  upon  that  point  for  any  great  length  of 
time),  that  I  believe  the  entire  records  of  the  world,  from  the  date  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  np  to  within  three  years  ago,  may  be  searched 
in  vain  for  one  single  affirmation,  from  one  single  man,  that  the  negro  was 
not  included  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ;  I  think  I  may  defy  Judge 
Douglas  to  show  that  he  ever  said  so,  that  Washington  ever  said  so,  that  any 
President  ever  said  so,  that  any  member  of  Congress  ever  said  so,  or  that  any 
living  man  upon  the  whole  earth  ever  said  so,  until  the  necessities  of  the 
present  policy  of  the  Democratic  party,  in  regard  to  slavery,  had  to  invent 
that  affirmation.  And  I  will  remind  Judge  Douglas  and  this  audience  that 
while  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  owner  of  slaves,  as  undoubtedly  be  was,  in  speak- 
ing upon  this  very  subject  he  used  the  strong  language  that  "  he  trembled  for 
his  country  when  he  remembered  that  God  was  just;"  and  I  will  offer  the 
highest  premium  in  my  power  to  Judge  Douglas  if  he  will  show  that  he,  in 
all  his  life,  ever  uttered  a  sentiment  at  all  akin  to  that  of  Jefferson. 

The  next  thing  to  which  I  will  ask  your  attention  is  the  Judge's  comments 
upon  the  fact,  as  he  assumes  it  to  be,  that  we  cannot  call  our  public  meetings 
as  Eepublican  meetings ;  and  he  instances  Tazewell  county  as  one  of  the 
places  where  the  friends  of  Lincoln  have  called  a  public  meeting  and  have 
not  dared  to  name  it  a  Eepublican  meeting.  He  instances  Monroe  County  as 
another,  where  Judge  Trumbull  and  Jehu  Baker  addressed  the  persons  whom 
the  Judge  assumes  to  be  the  friends  of  Lincoln,  calling  them  the  "  Free 
Democracy."  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  Judge  Douglas  that  he  spoke  in 
that  very  county  of  Tazewell  last  Saturday,  and  I  was  there  on  Tuesday  last ; 
and  when  he  spoke  there,  he  spoke  under  a  call  not  venturing  to  use  the 
word  "  Democrat."    [Turning  to  Judge  Douglas.]     What  think  you  of  this  ? 

So,  again,  there  is  another  thing  to  wdiich  I  would  aslc  the  Judge's  atten- 
tion upon  this  subject.  In  the  contest  of  1856  his  party  delighted  to  call 
themselves  together  as  the  "  National  Democracy  ;  "  but  now,  if  there  should 
be  a  notice  put  up  anywhere  for  a  meeting  of  the  "  National  Democracy," 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  would  not  come.  They  would  not  suj)pose 
themselves  invited.  They  would  understand  that  it  was  a  call  for  those  hate- 
ful postmasters  whom  he  talks  about. 

Now  a  few  words  in  regard  to  these  extracts  from  speeches  of  mine  which 
Judge  Douglas  has  read  to  you,  and  which  he  supposes  are  in  very  great  con- 
trast to  each  other.  Those  speeches  have  been  before  the  public  for  a  con- 
siderable time,  and  if  they  have  any  inconsistency  in  them,  if  there  is  any 
conflict  in  them,  the  public  have  been  able  to  detect  it.  When  the  Judge 
says,  in  speaking  on  this  subject,  that  I  make  speeches  of  one  sort  for  the 
people  of  the  northern  end  of  the  State,  and  of  a  different  sort  for  the  south- 
ern people,  he  assumes  that  I  do  not  understand  that  my  speeches  will  be  put 
in  print  and  read  north  and  south.  I  knew  all  the  while  that  the  speech  that 
I  made  at  Chicago,  and  the  one  I  made  at  Jonesboro  and  the  one  at  Charles- 
ton,  would  all  be  put  in  print,  and  all  the  reading  and  intelligent  men  in  the 
community  would  see  them  and  know  all  about  my  opinions.  And  I  have 
not  supposed,  and  do  not  now  suppose,  that  there  is  any  conflict  whatever 
between  them.  But  the  Judge  will  have  it  that  if  we  do  not  confess  that  there 
is  a  sort  of  inequality  between  the  white  and  black  races  which  justifies  us  in 
making  them  slaves,  we  must  then  insi.st  that  there  is  a  degree  of  equality 


212  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABKAHAM  LINCOLN 

that  requires  us  to  make  them  onrwives.  Now,  I  have  all  the  while  taken 
a  broad  distinction  in  regard  to  that  matter ;  and  that  is  all  there  is  in  these 
different  speeches  which  he  arrays  here ;  and  the  entire  reading  of  either  of 
the  speeches  will  show  that  that  distinction  was  made.  Perhaps  by  taking 
two  parts  of  the  same  speech  he  could  have  got  up  as  much  of  a  couliict  as 
the  one  he  has  found.  I  liave  all  the  while  maintained  that  in  so  far  as  it 
should  be  insisted  that  there  was  an  equality  between  the  white  and  black 
races  that  should  produce  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality,  it  was  an 
impossibility.  This  you  have  seen  in  my  printed  speeches,  and  with  it  I  have 
said  that  in  their  right  to  "life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  as  pro- 
claimed in  that  old  Declaration,  the  inferior  races  are  our  equals.  And  these 
declarations  I  have  constantly  made  in  reference  to  the  abstract  moral  ques- 
tion, to  contemplate  and  consider  when  we  are  legislating  about  any  new 
country  which  is  not  already  cursed  with  the  actual  presence  of  the  evil,  — 
slavery.  I  have  never  manifested  any  impatience  with  the  necessities  that 
spring  from  the  actual  presence  of  black  people  amongst  us,  and  the  actual 
existence  of  slavery  amongst  us  where  it  does  already  exist;  but  I  have 
insisted  that,  in  legislating  for  new  countries  where  it  does  not  exist,  there  is 
no  just  rule  other  than  that  of  moral  and  abstract  right !  With  reference  to 
those  new  countries,  those  maxims  as  to  the  right  of  a  people  to  "  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  "  were  the  just  rules  to  be  constantly  referred  to. 
There  is  no  misunderstanding  this,  except  by  men  interested  to  misunderstand 
it.  I  take  it  that  I  have  to  address  an  intelligent  and  reading  community, 
who  will  peruse  what  I  say,  weigh  it,  and  then  judge  whether  I  advance 
improper  or  unsound  views,  or  whether  I  advance  hypocritical,  and  deceptive, 
and  contrary  views  in  different  portions  of  the  country.  1  believe  myself  to 
be  guilty  of  no  such  thing  as  the  latter,  though,  of  course,  I  cannot  claim  that 
I  am  entirely  free  from  all  error  in  the  opinions  I  advance. 

The  Judge  has  also  detained  us  awhile  in  regard  to  the  distinction  between 
his  party  and  our  party.  His  he  assumes  to  be  a  national  party,  —  ours  a 
sectional  one.  He  does  this  in  asking  the  question  whether  this  country  has 
any  interest  in  the  maintenance  of  the  Eepublican  party  ?  He  assumes  that 
our  party  is  altogether  sectional,  —  that  the  party  to  which  he  adheres  is 
national ;  and  the  argument  is,  that  no  party  can  be  a  rightful  party  —  can  be 
based  upon  rightful  principles  —  unless  it  can  announce  its  principles  every- 
where. I  presume  that  Judge  Douglas  could  not  go  into  Paissia  and  announce 
the  doctrine  of  our  national  Democracy ;  he  could  not  denounce  the  doctrine 
of  kings  and  emperors  and  monarchies  in  Paissia ;  and  it  may  be  true  of  this 
country  that  in  some  places  we  may  not  be  able  to  proclaim  a  doctrine  as 
clearly  true  as  the  truth  of  Democracy,  because  there  is  a  section  so  directly 
opposed  to  it  that  they  will  not  tolerate  us  in  doing  so.  Is  it  the  true  test  of 
the  soundness  of  a  doctrine  that  in  some  places  people  won't  let  you  proclaim 
it  ?  Is  that  the  way  to  test  the  truth  of  any  doctrine  ?  Why,  I  understood 
that  at  one  time  the  people  of  Chicago  would  not  let  Judge  Douglas  preach  a 
certain  favorite  doctrine  of  his.  I  commend  to  his  consideration  the  question, 
whether  he  takes  that  as  a  test  of  the  unsoundness  of  what  he  wanted  to 
preach. 

There  is  another  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  ask  attention  for  a  little  while 
on  this  occasion.  What  has  always  been  the  evidence  brought  forward  to 
prove  that  the  Kepublican  party  is  a  sectional  party  ?  The  main  one  was  that 
in  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Union  the  people  did  not  let  the  Ptepublicans 
proclaim  their  doctrines  amongst  them.     That  has  been  the  main  evidence 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  213 

brought  forward,  —  that  they  had  no  supporters,  or  substantially  none,  in  the 
Slave  States.  The  South  have  not  taken  hold  of  our  principles  as  we 
announce  them ;  nor  does  Judge  Douglas  now  grapple  with  those  principles. 
We  have  a  Eepublican  State  Platform,  laid  down  in  Springfield  in  June  last, 
stating  our  position  all  the  way  tlirough  the  questions  before  the  country. 
We  are  now  far  advanced  in  this  canvass.  Judge  Douglas  and  I  have  made 
perhaps  forty  speeches  apiece,  and  we  have  now  for  the  fifth  time  met  face  to 
face  in  debate,  and  up  to  this  day  I  have  not  found  either  Judge  Douglas  or 
any  friend  of  his  taking  hold  of  the  Eepublican  platform,  or  laying  his  finger 
upon  anything  in  it  that  is  wrong.  I  ask  you  all  to  recollect  that.  Judge 
Douglas  turns  away  from  the  platform  of  principles  to  the  fact  that  he  can 
find  people  somewhere  who  will  not  allow  us  to  announce  those  principles. 
If  he  had  great  confidence  that  our  principles  were  wrong,  he  would  take  hold 
of  them  and  demonstrate  them  to  be  wrong.  But  he  does  not  do  so.  The 
only  evidence  he  has  of  their  being  wrong  is  in  the  fact  that  there  are  people 
who  won't  allow  us  to  preach  them.  I  ask  again,  is  that  the  way  to  test 
the  soundness  of  a  doctrine  ? 

I  ask  his  attention  also  to  the  fact  that  by  the  rule  of  nationality  he  is  him- 
self fast  becoming  sectional.  I  ask  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  speeches 
would  not  go  as  current  now  south  of  the  Ohio  Eiver  as  they  have  formerly 
gone  there.  I  ask  his  attention  to  tlie  fact  that  he  felicitates  himself  to-day 
that  all  the  Democrats  of  the  Free  States  are  agreeing  with  him,  while  he 
omits  to  tell  us  that  the  Democrats  of  any  Slave  State  agree  with  liim.  If  he 
has  not  thought  of  this,  I  commend  to  his  consideration  the  evidence  in  his 
own  declaration,  on  this  day,  of  his  becoming  sectional  too.  I  see  it  rapidly 
approaching.  Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this  ephemeral  contest  between 
Judge  Douglas  and  myself,  I  see  the  day  rapidly  approaching  when  his  pill  of 
sectionalism,  which  he  has  been  thrusting  down  the  throats  of  Eepublicans 
for  years  past,  will  be  crowded  down  his  own  throat. 

Nov,',  in  regard  to  what  Judge  Douglas  said  (in  the  beginning  of  his  speech) 
about  the  Compromise  of  1850  containing  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
although  I  have  often  presented  my  views  upon  that  subject,  yet  as  I  have 
not  done  so  in  this  canvass,  I  will,  if  you  please,  detain  you  a  little  with  them. 
I  have  always  maintained,  so  far  as  I  was  able,  that  there  was  nothing  of  the 
principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  the  Compromise  of  1850  at  all,  —  nothing 
whatever.  Where  can  you  find  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  bill  in  that 
Compromise  ?  If  anywhere,  in  the  two  pieces  of  the  Compromise  organizing 
the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah.  It  was  expressly  provided  in  these 
two  Acts  that  when  they  came  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  they  should  be 
admitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  should  choose,  by  their  own  con- 
stitutions. Nothing  was  said  in  either  of  those  Acts  as  to  what  was  to  be 
done  in  relation  to  slavery  during  the  Territorial  existence  of  those  Territories, 
while  Henry  Clay  constantly  made  the  declaration  (Judge  Douglas  recognizing 
him  as  a  leader)  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  old  Mexican  laws  would  control  that 
question  during  the  Territorial  existence,  and  that  these  old  Mexican  laws 
excluded  slavery.  How  can  that  be  used  as  a  principle  for  declaring  that 
during  the  Territorial  existence  as  well  as  at  the  time  of  framing  the  constitu- 
tion, the  people,  if  you  please,  might  have  slaves  if  they  wanted  them  ?  I 
am  not  discussing  the  question  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong  ;  but  how  are  the 
New  Mexican  and  Utah  laws  patterns  for  the  Nebraska  bill  ?  I  maintain 
that  the  organization  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  did  not  establish  a  general 
principle  at  all.     It  had  no  feature  of  establishing  a  general  principle.     The 


214  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Acts  to  which  I  liave  referred  were  a  part  of  a  general  system  of  Compromises. 
They  did  not  lay  down  what  was  proposed  as  a  regular  policy  for  the  Terri- 
tories, only  an  agreement  in  this  particular  case  to  do  in  that  way,  because 
other  things  were  done  that  were  to  be  a  compensation  for  it.  They  were 
allowed  to  come  in  in  that  shape,  because  in  another  way  it  was  paid  for,  — 
considering  that  as  a  part  of  that  system  of  measures  called  the  Compromise 
of  1850,  which  finally  included  half-a-dozen  Acts.  It  included  the  admission 
of  California  as  a  Free  State,  wliich  was  kept  out  of  the  Union  for  half  a  year 
because  it  had  formed  a  free  constitution.  It  included  the  settlement  of  the 
boundary  of  Texas,  which  had  been  undefined  before,  which  was  in  itself  a 
slavery  question ;  for  if  you  pushed  the  line  farther  west,  you  made  Texas 
larger,  and  made  more  slave  territory ;  while,  if  you  drew  the  line  toward  the 
east,  you  narrowed  tlie  boundary  and  diminished  the  domain  of  slavery,  and 
by  so  much  increased  free  territory.  It  included  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  It  included  the  passage  of  a  new  Fugitive 
Slave  law.  All  these  things  were  put  together,  and  though  passed  in  separate 
Acts,  were  nevertheless,  in  legislation  (as  the  speeches  at  the  time  will  show), 
made  to  depend  upon  each  other.  Each  got  votes,  with  the  understanding 
that  the  other  measures  were  to  pass,  and  by  this  system  of  Compromise,  in 
that  series  of  measures,  those  two  bills  —  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  bills  — 
were  passed :  and  I  say  for  that  reason  they  could  not  be  taken  as  models, 
framed  upon  their  own  intrinsic  principle,  for  all  future  Territories.  And  I 
have  the  evidence  of  this  in  the  fact  tliat  Judye  DouQ-las,  a  year  afterward,  or 
more  than  a  year  afterward,  perhaps,  when  he  first  introduced  l)ills  for  the 
purpose  of  framing  new  Territories,  did  not  attempt  to  follow  these  bills  of 
New  Mexico  and  Utah ;  and  even  wdien  he  introduced  this  Nebraska  bill,  I 
think  you  will  discover  that  he  did  not  exactly  follow  them.  But  I  do  not 
wish  to  dwell  at  great  length  upon  this  branch  of  the  discussion.  My  own 
opinion  is,  that  a  thorough  investigation  will  show  most  plainly  that  the  New 
Mexico  and  Utah  bills  were  part  of  a  system  of  compromise,  and  not  designed 
as  patterns  for  future  Territorial  legislation ;  and  that  this  Nebraska  bill  did 
not  follow  them  as  a  pattern  at  all. 

The  Judge  tells,  in  proceeding,  that  he  is  opposed  to  making  any  odious 
distinctions  between  Free  and  Slave  States.  I  am  altogether  unaware  that  the 
Eepublicans  are  in  favor  of  making  any  odious  distinctions  between  the  Free 
and  Slave  States.  But  there  is  still  a  difference,  I  think,  between  Judge  Dousz- 
las  and  the  Piepublicans  in  this.  I  suppose  tliat  the  real  difference  between 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends,  and  the  Piepublicans  on  the  contrary,  is,  that 
the  Judge  is  not  in  favor  of  making  any  difference  between  slavery  and  lib- 
erty ;  that  he  is  in  favor  of  eradicating,  of  pressing  out  of  view,  the  questions 
of  preference  in  this  country  for  free  or  slave  institutions  ;  and  consequently 
every  sentiment  he  utters  discards  the  idea  that  there  is  any  wrong  in  slav- 
ery. Everything  that  emanates  from  him  or  his  coadjutors  in  their  course  of 
policy  carefully  excludes  the  thought  tliat  there  is  anything  wrong  in  slavery. 
All  their  arguments,  if  you  will  consider  them,  will  be  seen  to  exclude  the 
thought  that  there  is  anything  whatever  wrong  in  slavery.  If  you  will  take 
the  Judge's  speeches,  and  select  the  short  and  pointed  sentences  expressed  by 
him,  —  as  his  declaration  that  he  "  don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or 
down,"  you  will  see  at  once  that  this  is  perfectly  logical,  if  you  do  not  adndt 
that  slaverv  is  wrong.  If  you  do  admit  that  it  is  wronsf.  Judge  Douglas  cannot 
logically  say  lie  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is  voted  up  or  voted  down.  Judge 
Douglas  declares  that  if  any  community  want  slavery  they  have  a  right  to 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  215 

have  it.  He  can  say  that  logically,  if  he  says  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slav- 
ery ;  but  if  you  admit  that  there  is  a  wrong  in  it,  he  cannot  logically  say  that 
anybody  lias  a  right  to  do  wrong.  He  insists  that,  upon  the  score  of  equality, 
the  owners  of  slaves  and  owners  of  property  —  of  horses  and  every  other  sort 
of  property  —  should  be  alike,  and  hold  them  alike  in  a  new  Territory.  That 
is  perfectly  logical  if  the  two  species  of  property  are  alike  and  are  equally 
founded  in  right.  But  if  you  admit  that  one  of  them  is  wrong,  you  cannot 
institute  any  equality  between  right  and  wrong.  And  from  this  difference  of 
sentiment,  —  the  belief  on  the  part  of  one  that  the  institution  is  wrong,  and  a 
policy  springing  from  that  belief  wliich  looks  to  the  arrest  of  the  enlargement  of 
that  wrong ;  and  this  other  sentiment,  that  it  is  no  wrong,  and  a  policy  sprung 
from  that  sentiment,  which  will  tolerate  no  idea  of  preventing  the  wrong  from 
growing  larger,  and  looks  to  there  never  being  an  end  of  it  through  all  the 
existence  of  things,  —  arises  the  real  difference  between  Judge  Douglas  and 
his  friends  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Eepublicans  on  the  other.  Now,  I 
confess  myself  as  belonging  to  that  class  in  the  country  who  contemplate 
slavery  as  a  moral,  social,  and  political  evil,  having  due  regard  for  its  actual 
existence  amongst  us  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in  any  satis- 
factory way,  and  to  all  the  constitutional  obligations  which  have  been  thrown 
about  it ;  but,  nevertheless,  desire  a  policy  that  looks  to  the  prevention  of 
it  as  a  wrong,  and  looks  hopefully  to  the  time  when  as  a  wrong  it  may  come 
to  an  end. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again,  for,  I  believe,  tlie  fifth  time,  if  not  tlie  seventh,  in 
my  presence,  reiterated  his  charge  of  a  conspiracy  or  combination  between  the 
National  Democrats  and  Eepublicans.  What  evidence  Judge  Douglas  has 
upon  this  subject  I  know  not,  inasmuch  as  he  never  favors  us  with  any.  I 
have  said  upou  a  former  occasion,  and  I  do  not  choose  to  suppress  it  now,  that 
I  have  no  objection  to  the  division  in  the  Judge's  party.  He  got  it  up  him- 
self. It  was  all  his  and  their  work.  He  had,  I  think,  a  great  deal  more  to  do 
with  the  steps  that  led  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  than  Mr.  Buchanan 
had ;  though  at  last,  when  they  reached  it,  they  quarrelled  over  it,  and  their 
friends  divided  upon  it.  I  am  very  free  to  confess  to  Judge  Douglas  that  I 
have  no  objection  to  the  division  ;  but  I  defy  the  Judge  to  show  any  evidence 
that  I  have  in  any  way  promoted  that  division,  unless  he  insists  on  being  a 
witness  himself  in  merely  saying  so.  I  can  give  all  fair  friends  of  Judge 
Douglas  here  to  understand  exactly  the  view  that  Republicans  take  in  regard 
to  tliat  division.  Don't  you  remember  how  two  years  ago  the  opponents  of 
the  Democratic  party  were  divided  between  Fremont  and  Fillmore  ?  I  guess 
you  do.  Any  democrat  who  remembers  that  division  will  remember  also  that 
he  was  at  the  time  very  glad  of  it,  and  then  he  will  be  able  to  see  all  there  is 
between  the  National  Democrats  and  the  Republicans.  What  we  now  think 
of  the  two  divisions  of  Democrats,  you  then  thought  of  the  Fremont  and  Fillmore 
divisions.     That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 

But  if  the  Judge  continues  to  put  forward  the  declaration  that  there  is 
an  unholy  and  unnatural  alliance  between  the  Republican  and  the  National 
Democrats,  I  now  want  to  enter  my  protest  against  receiving  him  as  an 
entirely  competent  witness  upon  that  subject.  I  want  to  call  to  the  Judge's 
attention  an  attack  he  made  upon  me  in  the  first  one  of  these  debates,  at 
Ottawa,  on  the  21st  of  August.  In  order  to  fix  extreme  Abolitionism  upon 
me.  Judge  Douglas  read  a  set  of  resolutions  which  he  declared  had  been 
passed  by  a  Republican  State  Convention,  in  October,  1854,  at  Springfield, 
Illinois,  and  he  declared  I  had  taken  part  in  that  Convention.     It  turned  out 


216  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

that  although  a  few  men  calling  themselves  an  anti-Nebraska  State  Convention 
had  sat  at  Springfield  about  that  time,  yet  neither  did  I  take  any  part  in  it, 
nor  did  it  pass  the  resolutions  or  any  such  resolutions  as  Judge  Douglas  read. 
So  apparent  had  it  become  that  the  resolutions  which  he  read  had  not  been 
passed  at  Springfield  at  all,  nor  by  a  State  Convention  in  which  I  had  taken 
part,  that  seven  days  afterward,  at  Freeport,  Judge  Douglas  declared  that  he 
had  been  misled  by  Charles  H.  Lanphier,  editor  of  the  "  State  Eegister,"  and 
Thomas  L.  Harris,  member  of  Congress  in  that  District,  and  he  promised  in 
that  speech  that  when  he  went  to  Springfield  he  would  investigate  the  matter. 
Since  then  Judge  Douglas  has  been  to  Springfield,  and  I  presume  has  made 
the  investigation  ;  but  a  month  has  passed  since  he  has  been  there,  and,  so  far 
as  I  know,  he  has  made  no  report  of  the  result  of  his  investigation.  I  have 
waited  as  I  think  sufficient  time  for  the  report  of  that  investigation,  and  I  have 
some  curiosity  to  see  and  hear  it.  A  fraud,  an  absolute  forgery  was  committed, 
and  the  perpetration  of  it  was  traced  to  the  three,  —  Lanphier,  Harris,  and 
Douglas.  Whether  it  can  be  narrowed  in  any  way  so  as  to  exonerate  any  one 
of  them,  is  what  Judge  Douglas's  report  would  probably  show. 

It  is  true  that  the  set  of  resolutions  read  by  Judge  Douglas  were  published 
in  the  Illinois  "State  Eegister  "  on  the  16th  of  October,  1854,  as  being  the 
resolutions  of  an  anti-Nebraska  Convention  which  had  sat  in  that  same  month 
of  October,  at  Springfield.  But  it  is  also  true  that  the  publication  in  the 
"  Eegister  "  was  a  forgery  tlien,  and  the  question  is  still  behind,  which  of  the 
three,  if  not  all  of  them,  committed  that  forgery  ?  The  idea  that  it  was  done 
by  mistake,  is  absurd.  The  article  in  the  Illinois  "  State  Eegister  "  contains 
part  of  the  real  proceedings  of  that  Springfield  Convention,  showing  that  the 
writer  of  the  article  had  the  real  proceedings  before  him,  and  purposely  threw 
out  the  genuine  resolutions  passed  by  the  Convention,  and  fraudulently  sub- 
stituted the  others.  Lanphier  then,  as  now,  was  the  editor  of  the  "  Eegister," 
so  that  there  seems  to  be  but  little  room  for  his  escape.  But  then  it  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Lanphier  had  less  interest  in  the  object  of  that  forgery 
than  either  of  the  other  two.  The  main  object  of  that  forgery  at  that  time 
was  to  beat  Yates  and  elect  Harris  to  Congress,  and  that  object  was  known  to 
be  exceedingly  dear  to  Judge  Douglas  at  that  time.  Harris  and  Douglas  were 
both  in  Springfield  when  the  Convention  was  in  session,  and  although  they  both 
left  before  the  fraud  appeared  in  the  "  Eegister,"  subsequent  events  show  that 
they  have  both  had  their  eyes  fixed  upon  that  Convention. 

The  fraud  having  been  apparently  successful  upon  the  occasion,  both 
Harris  and  Douglas  have  more  than  once  since  then  been  attempting  to  put  it 
to  new  uses.  As  the  fisherman's  wife,  whose  drowned  husband  was  brought 
home  with  his  body  full  of  eels,  said  when  she  was  asked,  "  What  was  to  be 
done  with  him  ?"  "  Take  the  eels  out  and  set  Mm  again"  so  Harris  and  Douglas 
have  shown  a  disposition  to  take  the  eels  out  of  that  stale  fraud  by  which 
they  gained  Harris's  election,  and  set  the  fraud  again  more  than  once.  On 
the  9th  of  July,  1856,  Douglas  attempted  a  repetition  of  it  upon  Trumbull  on 
the  floor  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  will  appear  from  the  appendix 
of  the  "  Congressional  Globe  "  of  that  date. 

On  the  9th  of  August,  Harris  attempted  it  again  upon  Norton  in  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives,  as  will  appear  by  the  same  documents,  —  the  appendix  to 
the  "  Congressional  Globe"  of  that  date.  On  the  21st  of  August  last,  all  three 
—  Lanphier,  Douglas,  and  Harris  —  reattempted  it  upon  me  at  Ottawa.  It 
has  been  clung  to  and  played  out  again  and  again  as  an  exceedingly  high 
trump  by  this  blessed  trio.     And  now  that  it  has  been  discovered  publicly 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  217 

to  be  a  fraud,  we  find  that  Judge  Douglas  manifests  no  surprise  at  it  at  all. 
He  makes  no  complaint  of  Lanphier,  who  must  have  known  it  to  be  a  fraud 
from  the  beginning.  He,  Lanphier,  and  Harris  are  just  as  cosey  now,  and  just 
as  active  in  the  concoction  of  new  scliemes  as  they  were  before  the  general 
discovery  of  this  fraud.  Now,  all  this  is  very  natural  if  they  are  all  alike 
guilty  in  that  fraud,  and  it  is  very  unnatural  if  any  one  of  them  is  innocent. 
Lanphier  perhaps  insists  that  the  rule  of  honor  among  thieves  does  not  quite 
require  him  to  take  all  upon  himself,  and  consequently  my  friend  Judge 
Douglas  finds  it  difiicult  to  make  a  satisfactory  report  upon  his  investigation. 
But  meanwhile  the  three  are  agreed  that  each  is  "<x  most  hoiioraUe  man." 

Judge  Douglas  requires  an  indorsement  of  his  truth  and  honor  by  a  re-elec- 
tion to  the  United  States  Senate,  and  he  makes  and  reports  against  me  and 
against  Judge  Trumbull,  day  after  day,  charges  which  we  know  to  be  utterly 
untrue,  without  for  a  moment  seeming  to  think  that  this  one  unexplained 
fraud,  which  he  promised  to  investigate,  will  be  the  least  drawback  to  his 
claim  to  belief.  Harris  ditto.  He  asks  a  re-election  to  the  lower  House  of 
Congress  without  seeming  to  remember  at  all  that  he  is  involved  in  this  dis- 
honorable fraud  !  The  Illinois  "  State  Eegister,"  edited  by  Lanphier,  then,  as 
now,  the  central  organ  of  both  Harris  and  Douglas,  continues  to  din  the  public 
ear  with  this  assertion,  without  seeming  to  suspect  that  these  assertions  are  at 
all  lacking  in  title  to  belief. 

After  all,  the  question  still  recurs  upon  us,  How  did  that  fraud  originally 
get  into  the  "  State  Eegister"  ?  Lanphier  then,  as  now,  was  the  editor  of  that 
paper.  Lanphier  knows.  Lanphier  cannot  be  ignorant  of  how  and  by  whom 
it  was  originally  concocted.  Can  he  be  induced  to  tell,  or,  if  he  has  told,  can 
Judge  Douglas  be  induced  to  tell  how  it  originally  was  concocted  ?  It  may 
be  true  that  Lanphier  insists  that  the  two  men  for  whose  benefit  it  was  origin- 
ally devised  shall  at  least  bear  their  share  of  it !  How  that  is,  I  do  not  know, 
and  while  it  remains  unexplained,  I  hope  to  be  pardoned  if  I  insist  that  the 
mere  fact  of  Judge  Douglas  making  charges  against  Trumbull  and  myself  is 
not  quite  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  them  ! 

While  we  were  at  Freeport,  in  one  of  these  joint  discussions,  I  answered 
certain  interrogatories  wdiich  Judge  Douglas  had  propounded  to  me,  and  then 
in  turn  propounded  some  to  him,  which  he  in  a  sort  of  way  answered.  The 
third  one  of  these  interrogatories  I  have  with  me,  and  wish  now  to  make  some 
comments  upon  it.  It  was  in  these  words  :  "  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  shall  decide  that  the  States  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiescing  in,  adhering  to,  and  following  such 
decision  as  a  rule  of  political  action  ? " 

To  this  interrogatory  Judge  Douglas  made  no  answer  in  any  just  sense  of 
the  word.  He  contented  himself  with  sneering  at  the  thought  that  it  was 
possible  for  the  Supreme  Court  ever  to  make  such  a  decision.  He  sneered  at 
me  for  propounding  the  interrogatory.  I  had  not  propounded  it  without  some 
reflection,  and  I  wish  now  to  address  to  this  audience  some  remarks  upon  it. 

In  the  second  clause  of  the  sixth  article,  I  believe  it  is,  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  we  find  the  following  language :  "  This  Constitution  and 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  and 
all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ;  and  the  judges  in  every  State 
shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to 
the  contrary,  notwitlistanding." 

The  essence  of  the  Dred  Scott  case  is  compressed  into  the  sentence  which 

28 


218  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

I  will  now  read  :  "Now,  as  we  have  already  said  in  an  earlier  part  of  this 
opinion,  upon  a  different  point,  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and 
expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution."  1  repeat  it,  "  The  right  of  j)TOiKrty 
in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  cxi^ressly  affirmed  in  the  Co7istittition  I "  ^^'hat  is 
it  to  be  "  affirmed  "  in  the  Constitution  ?  Made  firm  in  the  Constitution,  — 
so  made  that  it  cannot  be  separated  from  the  Constitution  without  breaking 
the  Constitution ;  durable  as  the  Constitution,  and  part  of  the  Constitution. 
Now,  remembering  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  I  have  read ; 
affirming  that  that  instrument  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  that  the 
Judges  of  every  State  shall  be  bound  by  it,  any  law  or  constitution  of  any 
State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding ;  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is 
affirmed  in  that  Constitution,  is  made,  formed  into,  and  cannot  be  separated 
from  it  without  breaking  it ;  durable  as  the  instrument;  part  of  the  instru- 
ment ;  —  what  follows  as  a  short  and  even  syllogistic  argument  from  it  ?  I 
think  it  follows,  and  I  submit  to  the  consideration  of  men  capable  of  arguing, 
whether  as  I  state  it,  in  syllogistic  form,  the  argument  has  any  fault  in  it  ? 

Nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can  destroy  a  right  dis- 
tinctly and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Therefore,  nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can  destroy  the 
right  of  property  in  a  slave. 

I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in  that  argument ;  assuming  the 
truth  of  the  premises,  the  conclusion,  so  far  as  I  have  capacity  at  all  to  under- 
stand it,  follows  inevitably.  There  is  a  fault  in  it  as  I  think,  but  the  fault 
is'!:  not  in  the  reasoning ;  but  the  falsehood  in  fact  is  a  fault  of  the  premises. 
I  believe  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  not  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  and  Judge  Douglas  thinks  it  is.  I  believe  that 
the  Supreme  Court  and  the  advocates  of  that  decision  may  search  in  vain  for 
the  place  in  the  Constitution  where  the  right  of  a  slave  is  distinctly  and 
expressly  affirmed.  I  say,  therefore,  that  I  think  one  of  the  premises  is  not 
true  in  fact.  But  it  is  true  with  Judge  Douglas.  It  is  true  with  the  Supreme 
Court  who  pronounced  it.  They  are  estopped  from  denying  it,  and  being 
estopped  from  denying  it  the  conclusion  follows  that,  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  being  the  supreme  law,  no  constitution  or  law  can  interfere 
with  it.  It  being  affirmed  in  the  decision  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave 
is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  the  conclusion  inevit- 
ably follows  that  no  State  law  or  constitution  can  destroy  that  right.  I  then 
say  to  Judge  Douglas  and  to  all  others  that  I  think  it  will  take  a  better 
answer  than  a  sneer  to  show  that  those  who  have  said  that  the  right  of  prop- 
erty in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution,  are 
not  prepared  to  show  that  no  constitution  or  law  can  destroy  that  right.  I 
say  I  believe  it  will  take  a  far  better  argument  than  a  mere  sneer  to  show  to 
the  minds  of  intelligent  men  that  whoever  has  so  said,  is  not  prepared,  when- 
ever public  sentiment  is  so  far  advanced  as  to  justify  it,  to  say  the  other. 
This  is  but  an  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of  one  very  humble  man ;  but  it  is 
my  opinion  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  as  it  is,  never  would  have  been  made 
in  its  present  form  if  the  party  that  made  it  had  not  been  sustained  previously 
by  the  elections.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  the  new  Dred  Scott  decision, 
deciding  against  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  States  to  exclude  slavery,  will 
never  be  made,  if  that  party  is  not  sustained  by  the  elections.  I  believe, 
further,  that  it  is  just  as  sure  to  be  made  as  to-morrow  is  to  come,  if  that  party 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  219 

shall  be  sustained.  T  have  said,  upon  a  former  occasion,  and  I  repeat  it  now, 
that  the  course  of  argument  that  Judge  Douglas  makes  use  of  upon  this  sub- 
ject (I  cliarge  not  his  motives  in  this),  is  preparing  the  public  mind  for  that 
new  Dred  Scott  decision.  1  have  asked  him  again  to  point  out  to  me  the 
reasons  for  his  first  adherence  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  as  it  is.  I  have 
turned  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  General  Jackson  differed  with  him  in 
regard  to  the  political  obligation  of  a  Supreme  Court  decision.  I  have  asked 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  Jefferson  differed  with  him  in  regard  to  the 
political  obligation  of  a  Supreme  Court  decision.  Jefferson  said  that  "  Judges 
are  as  honest  as  other  men,  and  not  more  so."  And  he  said,  substantially, 
that  "  whenever  a  free  people  should  give  up  in  absolute  submission  to  any 
department  of  government,  retaining  for  themselves  no  appeal  from  it,  their 
liberties  were  gone."  I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Cincin- 
nati  platform  upon  which  he  says  he  stands,  disregards  a  time-honored  deci- 
sion of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  denying  the  power  of  Congress  to  establish  a 
National  Bank.  I  have  asked  his  attention  to  the  fact  tliat  he  himself  was 
one  of  the  most  active  instruments  at  one  time  in  breaking  down  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  because  it  had  made  a  decision  distasteful  to 
him, —  a  struggle  ending  in  the  remarkable  circumstance  of  his  sitting  down 
as  one  of  the  new  Judges  who  were  to  overslaugh  tliat  decision ;  getting  his 
title  of  Judge  in  that  very  way. 

So  far  in  this  controversy  I  can  get  no  answer  at  all  from  Judge  Douglas 
upon  these  subjects.  Not  one  can  I  get  from  him,  except  that  he  swells  him- 
self up  and  says,  "  All  of  us  who  stand  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
are  the  friends  of  the  Constitution ;  all  you  fellows  that  dare  question  it  in 
any  way,  are  the  enemies  of  the  Constitution."  Now,  in  this  very  devoted 
adherence  to  this  decision,  in  opposition  to  all  the  great  political  leaders  whom 
he  has  recognized  as  leaders,  in  opposition  to  his  former  self  and  history,  there 
is  something  very  marked.  And  the  manner  in  which  he  adheres  to  it, — not 
as  being  right  upon  the  merits,  as  he  conceives  (because  he  did  not  discuss 
tliat  at  all),  but  as  being  absolutely  obligatory  upon  every  one,  simply  because 
of  the  source  from  whence  it  comes,  —  as  that  which  no  man  can  gainsay, 
whatever  it  may  be  ;  this  is  another  marked  feature  of  his  adherence  to  that 
decision.  It  marks  it  in  this  respect  that  it  commits  him  to  the  next  decision, 
whenever  it  comes,  as  being  as  obligatory  as  this  one,  since  he  does  not  inves- 
tigate it,  and  won't  inquire  whether  this  opinion  is  right  or  wrong.  So  he 
takes  the  next  one  without  inquiring  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong.  He  teaches 
men  this  doctrine,  and  in  so  doing  prepares  the  public  mind  to  take  the  next 
decision  when  it  comes,  without  any  inquiry.  In  this  I  think  I  argue  fairly 
(without  questioning  motives  at  all)  that  Judge  Douglas  is  most  ingeniously 
and  powerfully  preparing  the  public  mind  to  take  that  decision  when  it  comes  ; 
and  not  only  so,  but  he  is  doing  it  in  various  other  ways.  In  these  general 
maxims  about  liberty,  in  his  assertions  that  he  "  don't  care  whether  slavery  is 
voted  up  or  voted  down ; "  that  "  whoever  wants  slavery  has  a  right  to  have 
it ; "  that  "  upon  principles  of  equality  it  should  be  allowed  to  go  everywhere  ;  " 
that  "  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  free  and  slave  institutions."  In  this 
he  is  also  preparing  (whether  purposely  or  not)  the  way  for  making  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  national !  I  repeat  again,  for  I  wish  no  misunderstanding, 
that  I  do  not  charge  that  he  means  it  so ;  but  I  call  upon  your  minds  to 
inquire,  if  you  were  going  to  get  the  best  instrument  you  could,  and  then  set 
it  to  work  in  the  most  ingenious  way,  to  prepare  the  public  mind  for  this 
movement,  operating  in  the  Free  States,  where  there  is  now  an  abhorrence  of 


220  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

the  institution  of  slavery,  could  you  find  an  instrument  so  capable  of  doing  it 
as  Judge  Douglas,  or  one  employed  in  so  apt  a  way  to  do  it  ? 

I  have  said  once  before,  and  I  will  repeat  it  now,  that  Mr.  Clay,  when  he 
was  once  answering  an  objection  to  the  Colonization  Society,  that  it  had  a  ten- 
dency to  the  ultimate  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  said  that  "  those  who  would 
repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation  must  do  more  than 
put  down  the  benevolent  efforts  of  the  Colonization  Society, —  they  must  go 
back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  independence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon  that 
thunders  its  annual  joyous  return  ;  they  must  blot  out  the  moral  lights  ai'ouud 
us  ;  they  must  penetrate  the  human  soul,  and  eradicate  the  light  of  reason  and 
the  love  of  liberty  !  "  And  I  do  think  —  I  repeat,  though  I  said  it  on  a  former 
occasion  —  that  Judge  Douglas  and  whoever,  like  him,  teaches  that  the  negro 
has  no  share,  humble  though  it  may  be,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
is  going  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  independence,  and,  so  far  as  in  him 
lies,  muzzling  the  cannon  that  thunders  its  annual  joyous  return  ;  that  he  is 
blowiuo-  out  the  moral  lights  around  us,  when  he  contends  that  whoever  wants 
slaves  has  a  right  to  hold  them ;  that  he  is  penetrating,  so  far  as  lies  in  his 
power,  the  human  soul,  and  eradicating  the  light  of  reason  and  the  love  of  lib- 
erty, when  he  is  in  every  possible  way  preparing  the  public  mind,  by  his  vast 
influence,  for  making  the  institution  of  slavery  perpetual  and  national. 

There  is,  my  friends,  only  one  other  point  to  which  I  will  call  your  atten- 
tion for  the  remaining  time  that  I  have  left  me,  and  perhaps  I  shall  not 
occupy  the  entire  time  that  I  have,  as  that  one  point  may  not  take  me  clear 
through  it. 

Among  the  interrogatories  that  Judge  Douglas  propounded  to  me  at  Free- 
port,  there  was  one  in  about  this  language  :  "  Are  you  opposed  to  the  acqui- 
sition of  any  further  territory  to  the  tJnited  States,  unless  slavery  sliall  first 
be  prohibited  therein  ? "  I  answered,  as  I  thought,  in  this  way,  that  I  am  not 
generally  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  additional  territory,  and  that  I  would 
support  a  proposition  for  the  acquisition  of  additional  territory  according  as 
my  supporting  it  was  or  was  not  calculated  to  aggravate  this  slavery  question 
amongst  us.  I  then  proposed  to  Judge  Douglas  another  interrogatory,  which 
was  correlative  to  that:  "Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  additional  territory, 
in  disregard  of  how  it  may  affect  us  upon  the  slavery  question  ? "  Judge 
Douglas  answered,  —  that  is,  in  his  own  way  he  answered  it.  I  believe  tliat, 
although  he  took  a  good  many  words  to  answer  it,  it  was  a  little  more  fully 
answered  tlmn  any  other.  The  substance  of  his  answer  was,  that  this  country 
would  continue  to  expand ;  that  it  would  need  additional  territory ;  that  it 
was  as  absurd  to  suppose  that  we  could  continue  upon  our  present  territory, 
enlarging  in  population  as  we  are,  as  it  would  be  to  hoop  a  boy  twelve  years 
of  age,  and  expect  him  to  grow  to  man's  size  without  bursting  the  hoops.  I 
believe  it  was  something  like  that.  Consequently,  he  was  in  favor  of  the 
acquisition  of  further  territory  as  fast  as  we  might  need  it,  in  disregard  of  how 
it  might  affect  the  slavery  question.  I  do  not  say  this  as  giving  his  exact 
language,  but  he  said  so  sul3Stantially  ;  and  he  would  leave  the  question  of  slav- 
ery where  the  territory  was  acquired,  to  be  settled  by  the  people  of  the  acquired 
territory.  ["  That 's  the  doctrine."]  May  be  it  is  ;  let  us  consider  that  for  a 
while.  This  will  probably,  in  the  run  of  things,  become  one  of  the  concrete 
manifestations  of  this  slavery  question.  If  Judge  Douglas's  policy  upon  this 
question  succeeds,  and  gets  fairly  settled  down,  until  all  opposition  is  crushed 
out,  the  next  thing  will  be  a  grab  for  the  territory  of  poor  Mexico,  an  invasion 
of  the  rich  lands  of  South  America,  then  the  adjoining  islands  will  follow,  each 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  221 

one  of  which  promises  additional  slave-fields.  And  this  question  is  to  be  left 
to  the  people  of  those  countries  for  settlement.  When  we  shall  get  IMexico, 
I  don't  know  wliether  the  Judge  will  be  in  favor  of  the  Mexican  people  that 
we  get  with  it  settling  that  question  for  themselves  and  all  others  ;  because  we 
know  the  Jud«e  has  a  great  horror  for  mongrels,  and  I  understand  that  the 
people  of  Mexico  are  most  decidedly  a  race  of  mongrels.  I  understand  that 
there  is  not  more  than  one  person  there  out  of  eight  who  is  pure  white,  and  I 
suppose  from  the  Judge's  previous  declaration  that  when  we  get  Mexico  or 
any  considerable  portion  of  it,  that  he  will  be  in  favor  of  these  mongrels  set- 
tling the  question,  which  would  bring  him  somewhat  into  collision  with  Ins 
horror  of  an  inferior  race. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  though,  that  this  power  of  acquiring  additional  ter- 
ritory is  a  power  confided  to  the  President  and  Senate  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  a  power  not  under  the  control  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  any 
further  than  they,  the  President  and  the  Senate,  can  be  considered  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people.  Let  me  illustrate  that  by  a  case  we  have  in  our 
history.  When  we  acquired  the  territory  from  Mexico  in  the  Mexican  war, 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  composed  of  the  immediate  representatives  of  the 
people,  all  the  time  insisted  that  the  territory  thus  to  be  acquired  should  be 
brought  in  upon  condition  that  slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited  therein, 
upon  the  terms  and  in  the  language  that  slavery  had  been  prohibited  from 
coming  into  this  country.  That  was  insisted  upon  constantly  and  never  failed 
to  call  forth  an  assurance  that  any  territory  thus  acquired  should  have  that 
prohibition  in  it,  so  far  as  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  was  concerned.  But 
at  last  the  President  and  Senate  acquired  tlie  territory  without  asking  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  anything  about  it,  and  took  it  without  that  prohibi- 
tion. They  have  the  power  of  acquiring  territory  without  the  immediate 
representatives  of  the  people  being  called  upon  to  say  anything  about  it,  and 
thus  furnishing  a  very  apt  and  powerful  means  of  bringing  new  territory  into 
the  Union,  and,  when  it  is  once  brought  into  the  country,  involving  us  anew  in 
this  slavery  agitation.  It  is,  therefore,  as  I  think,  a  very  important  question 
for  the  consideration  of  the  American  people,  whether  the  policy  of  bringing  in 
additional  territory,  without  considering  at  all  how  it  will  operate  upon  the 
safety  of  the  Union  in  reference  to  this  one  great  disturbing  element  in  our 
national  politics,  shall  be  adopted  as  the  policy  of  the  country.  You  will  bear 
in  mind  that  it  is  to  be  acquired,  according  to  the  Judge's  view,  as  fast  as  it  is 
needed,  and  the  indefinite  part  of  this  proposition  is  that  we  have  only  Judge 
Douglas  and  his  class  of  men  to  decide  how  fast  it  is  needed.  We  have  no 
clear  and  certain  way  of  determining  or  demonstrating  how  fast  territory  is 
needed  by  the  necessities  of  the  country.  Whoever  wants  to  go  out  filibuster- 
ing, then,  thinks  that  more  territory  is  needed.  Whoever  wants  wider  slave- 
fields,  feels  sure  that  some  additional  territory  is  needed  as  slave-territory. 
Then  it  is  as  easy  to  show  the  necessity  of  additional  slave-territory  as  it  is  to 
assert  anything  that  is  incapable  of  absolute  demonstration.  Whatever  motive 
a  man  or  a  set  of  men  may  have  for  making  annexation  of  property  or  territory, 
it  is  very  easy  to  assert,  but  nmch  less  easy  to  disprove,  that  it  is  necessary  for 
the  wants  of  the  country. 

And  now  it  only  remains  for  me  to  say  that  I  think  it  is  a  very  grave  ques- 
tion for  the  people  of  this  Union  to  consider,  whether,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
this  slavery  question  has  been  the  only  one  that  has  ever  endangered  our  Ee- 
publican  institutions,  the  only  one  that  has  ever  threatened  or  menaced  a 
dissolution  of  the  Union,  that  has  ever  disturbed  us  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 


222  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

US  fear  for  the  perpetuity  of  our  liberty,  — in  view  of  these  facts,  I  think  it  is 
an  exceedingly  interesting  and  important  question  for  this  people  to  consider 
whether  we  shall  engage  in  the  policy  of  acquiring  additional  territory,  discard- 
ing altogether  from  our  consideration,  while  obtaining  new  territory,  the  ques- 
tion how  it  may  affect  us  in  regard  to  this,  the  only  endangering  element  to 
our  liberties  and  national  greatness.  The  Judge's  view  has  been  expressed. 
I,  in  my  answer  to  his  question,  have  expressed  mine.  I  think  it  will  become 
an  important  and  practical  question.  Our  views  are  before  the  public.  I  am 
willing  and  anxious  that  they  should  consider  them  fully ;  that  they  should 
turn  it  about  and  consider  the  importance  of  the  question,  and  arrive  at  a  just 
conclusion  as  to  whether  it  is  or  is  not  wise  in  the  people  of  this  Union,  in  the 
acquisition  of  new  territory,  to  consider  whether  it  will  add  to  the  disturbance 
that  is  existing  amongst  us,  —  whether  it  will  add  to  the  one  only  danger  that 
has  ever  threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  or  our  own  liberties.  I  think 
it  is  extremely  important  that  they  shall  decide,  and  rightly  decide,  that  ques- 
tion before  entering  upon  that  policy. 

And  now,  my  friends,  having  said  the  little  I  wish  to  say  upon  this  head, 
whether  I  have  occupied  the  whole  of  the  remnant  of  my  time  or  not,  I  believe 
I  could  not  enter  upon  any  new  topic  so  as  to  treat  it  fully,  without  transcend- 
ing my  time,  which  I  would  not  for  a  moment  think  of  doing.  I  give  way  to 
Judge  Douglas. 


MR   DOUGLAS'S   REPLY. 

Gentlemen  :  The  highest  compliment  you  can  pay  me  during  the  brief 
half-hour  that  I  have  to  conclude  is  by  observing  a  strict  silence.  I  desire  to 
be  heard  rather  than  to  be  applauded. 

The  first  criticism  that  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  on  my  speech  was  that  it  was 
in  substance  what  I  have  said  everywhere  else  in  the  State  where  I  have 
addressed  the  people.  I  wish  I  could  say  the  same  of  his  speech.  Why,  the 
reason  I  complain  of  him  is  because  he  makes  one  speech  north,  and  another 
south.  Because  he  has  one  set  of  sentiments  for  the  Abolition  counties,  and 
another  set  for  the  counties  opposed  to  Abolitionism.  My  point  of  complaint 
against  him  is  that  I  cannot  induce  him  to  hold  up  the  same  standard,  to  carry 
the  same  flag,  in  all  parts  of  the  State.  He  does  not  pretend,  and  no  other 
man  will,  that  I  have  one  set  of  principles  for  Galesburgh,  and  another  for 
Charleston.  He  does  not  pretend  that  I  hold  to  one  doctrine  in  Chicago,  and 
an  opposite  one  in  Jonesboro.  I  have  proved  that  he  has  a  different  set  of 
principles  for  each  of  these  localities.  AH  I  asked  of  him  was  that  he  should 
deliver  the  speech  that  he  has  made  here  to-day  in  Coles  County  instead  of  in 
old  Knox.  It  would  have  settled  the  question  between  us  in  that  doubtful 
county.  Here  I  understand  him  to  reaffirm  the  doctrine  of  negro  equality,  and 
to  assert  that  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the  negro  is  declared  equal 
to  the  white  man.  He  tells  you  to-day  that  the  negro  was  included  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  when  it  asserted  that  all  men  were  created  equal. 
["  We  believe  it."]     Very  well. 

Mr.  Lincoln  asserts  to-day,  as  he  did  at  Chicago,  that  the  negro  was 
included  in  that  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which  says  that  all 
men  were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  the  Creator  with  certain  inalienable 
rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.     If  the 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  223 

negro  was  made  his  equal  and  mine,  if  that  equality  was  established  by  divine 
law,  and  was  the  negro's  inalienable  right,  how  came  he  to  say  at  Charleston  to 
the  Kentuckians  residing  in  that  section  of  our  State  that  the  negro  was 
physically  inferior  to  the  white  man,  belonged  to  an  inferior  race,  and  he  was 
for  keeping  him  always  in  that  inferior  condition  ?  I  wish  you  to  bear  these 
things  in  mind.  At  Cliarlcston  he  said  that  the  negro  belonged  to  an  inferior 
race,  and  that  he  was  for  keeping  him  in  that  inferior  condition.  There  he 
gave  the  people  to  understand  that  there  was  no  moral  question  involved,  be- 
cause, the  inferiority  being  established,  it  was  only  a  question  of  degree,  and 
not  a  question  of  right ;  here,  to-day,  instead  of  making  it  a  question  of  degree, 
he  makes  it  a  moral  question,  says  that  it  is  a  great  crime  to  hold  the  negro  in 
that  inferior  condition.  ["  He 's  right."]  Is  he  right  now,  or  was  he  right  in 
Charleston  ?  ["  Both."]  He  is  right  then,  sir,  in  your  estimation,  not  because 
he  is  consistent,  but  because  he  can  trim  his  principles  any  way,  in  any  section, 
so  as  to  secure  votes.  All  I  desire  of  him  is  that  he  will  declare  the  same 
principles  in  the  south  that  he  does  in  the  north. 

But  did  you  notice  how  he  answered  my  position  that  a  man  should  hold 
the  same  doctrines  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  this  Republic  ?  He 
said,  "  Would  Judge  Douglas  go  to  Eussia  and  proclaim  the  same  principles 
he  does  here  ? "  I  would  remind  him  that  Eussia  is  not  under  the  American 
Constitution.  If  Eussia  was  a  part  of  the  American  Eepublic,  under  our 
Federal  Constitution,  and  I  was  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution,  I  would 
maintain  the  same  doctiine  in  Eussia  that  I  do  in  Illinois.  The  slaveholding 
States  are  governed  by  the  same  Federal  Constitution  as  ourselves,  and  hence 
a  man's  principles,  in  order  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution,  must  be 
the  same  in  the  South  as  they  are  in  the  North,  the  same  in  the  Free  States  as 
they  are  in  the  Slave  States.  Whenever  a  man  advocates  one  set  of  principles 
in  one  section,  and  another  set  in  another  section,  his  opinions  are  in  violation 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  whicli  he  has  sworn  to  support.  When  Mr. 
Lincoln  went  to  Congress  in  1847,  and,  laying  his  hand  upon  the  Holy  Evan- 
gelists, made  a  solemn  vow,  in  tlie  presence  of  high  Heaven,  that  he  would  be 
faithful  to  the  Constitution,  what  did  he  mean,  —  the  Constitution  as  he 
expounds  it  in  Galesburgh,  or  the  Constitution  as  he  expounds  it  in  Charleston. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  devoted  considerable  time  to  tlie  circumstance  that  at 
Ottawa  I  read  a  series  of  resolutions  as  having  been  adopted  at  Springfield, 
in  this  State,  on  the  4th  or  5th  of  October,  1854,  which  happened  not  to 
have  been  adopted  there.  He  has  used  hard  names ;  has  dared  to  talk  about 
fraud,  about  forgery,  and  has  insinuated  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  between 
Mr.  Lanphier,  Mr.  Harris,  and  myself  to  perpetrate  a  forgery.  Now,  bear  in 
mind  that  he  does  not  deny  that  these  resolutions  were  adopted  in  a  majority 
of  all  the  Eepublican  counties  of  this  State  in  that  year ;  he  does  not  deny 
that  tliey  were  declared  to  be  the  platform  of  this  Eepublican  party  in  tlie 
first  Congressional  District,  in  the  second,  in  the  third,  and  in  many  counties 
of  the  fourth,  and  that  they  thus  became  the  platform  of  his  party  in  a  major- 
ity of  the  counties  upon  which  he  now  relies  for  support ;  he  does  not  deny 
the  truthfulness  of  the  resolutions,  but  takes  exception  to  the  spot  on  which 
they  were  adopted.  He  takes  to  himself  great  merit  because  he  thinks  they 
were  not  adopted  on  the  right  spot  for  me  to  use  them  against  him,  just  as  he 
was  very  severe  in  Congress  upon  the  Government  of  his  country  when  he 
thought  that  he  had  discovered  that  the  Mexican  war  was  not  begun  in  the 
right  spot,  and  was  therefore  unjust.  He  tries  very  hard  to  make  out  that 
there  is  something  very  extraordinary  in  the  place  where  the  thing  was  done, 


22'J:  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 


aud  not  in  the  thing  itself.  I  never  believed  before  that  Abraham  Lincoln 
would  be  guilty  of  what  he  has  done  this  day  in  regard  to  tliose  resolutions. 
In  tlie  first  place,  the  moment  it  was  intiniated  to  me  that  they  had  been 
adopted  at  Aurora  and  Rockford  instead  of  Springfield,  I  did  not  wait  for  him 
to  call  my  attention  to  the  fact,  but  led  off,  and  explained  in  my  first  meeting 
after  the  Ottawa  debate  what  the  mistake  was,  and  how  it  had  been  made.  I 
supposed  that  for  an  honest  man,  conscious  of  his  own  rectitude,  that  explana- 
tion would  be  sufficient.  I  did  not  wait  for  him,  after  the  mistake  was  made, 
to  call  my  attention  to  it,  but  frankly  explained  it  at  once  as  an  honest  man 
would.  I  also  gave  the  authority  on  which  I  had  stated  that  these  resolutions 
were  adopted  by  the  Springfield  Eepublican  Convention ;  that  I  had  seen  them 
quoted  by  Major  Harris  in  a  debate  in  Congress,  as  having  been  adopted  by 
the  first  Republican  State  Convention  in  Illinois,  and  that  I  had  written  to  him 
and  asked  him  for  the  authority  as  to  the  time  and  place  of  their  adoption  ; 
that,  Major  Harris  being  extremely  ill,  Charles  H.  Lanphier  had  written  to  me, 
for  him,  that  they  were  adopted  at  Springfield  on  the  5th  of  October,  1854,  and 
had  sent  me  a  copy  of  the  Springfield  paper  containing  them.  I  read  them 
from  the  newspaper  just  as  Mr.  Lincoln  reads  the  proceedings  of  meetings  held 
years  ago  from  the  newspapers.  After  giving  that  explanation,  I  did  not 
think  there  was  an  honest  man  in  the  State  of  Illinois  who  doubted  that  I 
had  been  led  into  the  error,  if  it  was  such,  innocently,  in  the  way  I  detailed  ; 
and  I  will  now  say  that  I  do  not  now  believe  that  there  is  an  honest  man  on 
the  face  of  the  globe  who  will  not  regard  with  abhorrence  and  disgust  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's insinuations  of  my  complicity  in  that  forgery,  if  it  was  a  forgery.  Does 
Mr.  Lincoln  wish  to  push  these  things  to  the  point  of  personal  difficulties 
here  ?  I  commenced  this  contest  by  treating  him  courteously  and  kindly  ;  I 
always  spoke  of  him  in  words  of  respect ;  and  in  return  he  has  sought,  and  is 
now  seeking  to  divert  public  attention  from  the  enormity  of  his  revolutionary 
principles  by  impeaching  men's  sincerity  and  integrity,  and  inviting  personal 
quarrels. 

I  desired  to  conduct  this  contest  with  him  like  a  gentleman ;  but  I  spurn 
the  insinuation  of  complicity  and  fraud  made  upon  the  simple  circumstance 
of  an  editor  of  a  newspaper  having  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  place  where  a 
thing  was  done,  but  not  as  to  the  thing  itself.  These  resolutions  were  the 
platform  of  this  Republican  party  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  of  that  year.  They  were 
adopted  in  a  majority  of  the  Republican  counties  in  the  State  ;  and  when  I 
asked  him  at  Ottawa  whether  they  formed  the  platform  upon  which  he  stood, 
he  did  not  answer,  and  I  could  not  get  an  answer  out  of  him.  He  then 
thought,  as  I  thought,  that  those  resolutions  were  adopted  at  the  Springfield 
Convention,  but  excused  himself  by  saying  that  he  was  not  there  when  they 
w^ere  adopted,  but  had  gone  to  Tazewell  court  in  order  to  avoid  being  pres'ent 
at  the  Convention.  He  saw  them  published  as  having  been  adopted  at 
Springfield,  and  so  did  I,  and  he  knew  that  if  there  was  a  mistake  in  regard 
to  them,  that  I  had  nothing  under  heaven  to  do  with  it.  Besides,  you  find 
that  in  all  these  northern  counties  where  the  Republican  candidates  are  run- 
ning pledged  to  him,  that  the  Conventions  which  nominated  them  adopted 
that  identical  platform.  One  cardinal  point  in  that  platform  which  he  shrinks 
from  is  this  :  that  there  shall  be  no  more  Slave  States  admitted  into  the 
Union,  even  if  the  people  want  them.  Lovejoy  stands  pledged  against  the 
admission  of  any  more  Slave  States.  ["  Right,  so  do  we."  ]  So  do  you,  you 
say.  Farnsworth  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave 
States.     Washburne  stands  pledged  the  same  way.      The  candidate  for  the 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  225 

Legislature  who  is  running  on  Lincoln's  ticket  in  Henderson  and  Warren, 
stands  committed  by  his  vote  in  the  Legislature  to  the  same  thing;  and  I  am 
informed,  but  do  not  know  of  the  fact,  that  your  candidate  here  is  also  so 
pledged.  ["  Hurrah  for  him !  good  !  "  ]  Now,  you  Republicans  all  hurrah  for 
him,  and  for  the  doctrine  of  "  no  more  Slave  States,"  and  yet  Lincoln  tells 
you  that  his  conscience  will  not  permit  him  to  sanction  that  doctrine,  and 
complains  because  the  resolutions  I  read  at  Ottawa  made  him,  as  a  member  of 
the  party,  responsible  for  sanctioning  the  doctrine  of  no  more  Slave  States. 
You  are  one  way,  you  confess,  and  he  is,  or  pretends  to  be,  the  other ;  and  yet 
you  are  both  governed  by  •principle  in  supporting  one  another.  If  it  be  true, 
as  I  have  shown  it  is,  that  the  whole  Eepublican  party  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  State  stands  committed  to  the  doctrine  of  no  more  Slave  States,  and  that 
this  same  doctrine  is  repudiated  by  the  Eepublicans  in  the  other  part  of  the 
State,  I  wonder  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  party  do  not  present  the  case 
which  he  cited  from  the  Scriptures,  of  a  house  divided  against  itself  which 
cannot  stand  I  I  desire  to  know  what  are  Mr.  Lincoln's  principles  and  the 
principles  of  his  party  ?  I  hold,  and  the  party  with  which  I  am  identified 
hold,  that  the  people  of  each  State,  old  and  new,  have  the  right  to  decide  the 
slavery  question  for  themselves  ;  and  when  I  used  the  remark  that  I  did  not 
care  whether  slavery  was  voted  up  or  down,  I  used  it  in  the  connection  that 
I  was  for  allowing  Kansas  to  do  just  as  she  pleased  on  the  slavery  question. 
I  said  that  I  did  not  care  whether  they  voted  slavery  up  or  down,  because 
they  had  the  right  to  do  as  they  pleased  on  the  question,  and  therefore  my 
action  would  not  be  controlled  by  any  suclf  consideration.  Why  cannot 
Abraham  Lincoln,  and  the  party  with  which  he  acts,  speak  out  their  princi- 
ples so  that  they  may  be  understood  ?  Why  do  they  claim  to  be  one  thing 
in  one  part  of  the  State,  and  another  in  the  other  part  ?  Whenever  I  allude 
to  the  Abolition  doctrines,  which  he  considers  a  slander  to  be  charged  with 
being  in  favor  of,  you  all  endorse  them,  and  hurrah  for  them,  not  knowing 
that  your  candidate  is  ashamed  to  acknowledge  them. 

I  have  a  few  words  to  say  upon  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  has  troubled 
the  brain  of  Mr.  Lincoln  so  much.  He  insists  that  that  decision  would  carry 
slavery  into  the  Free  States,  notwithstanding  that  the  decision  says  directly 
the  opposite,  and  goes  into  a  long  argument  to  make  you  believe  that  I  am  in 
favor  of,  and  would  sanction,  the  doctrine  that  would  allow  slaves  to  be  brought 
here  and  held  as  slaves  contrary  to  our  Constitution  and  laws.  Mr.  Lincoln 
knew  better  when  he  asserted  this ;  he  knew  that  one  newspaper,  and,  so  far  as 
is  within  my  knowledge,  but  one,  ever  asserted  that  doctrine,  and  that  I  was 
the  first  man  in  either  House  of  Congress  that  read  that  article  in  debate,  and 
denounced  it  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  as  revolutionary.  When  the  Wash- 
ington "  Union,"  on  the  17th  of  last  November,  published  an  article  to  that 
effect,  I  branded  it  at  once,  and  denounced  it ;  and  hence  the  "  Union  "  has 
been  pursuing  me  ever  since.  Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  replied  to  me,  and 
said  that  there  was  not  a  man  in  any  of  the  Slave  States  south  of  the  Potomac 
River  that  held  any  such  doctrine.  ]\Ir.  Lincoln  knows  that  tliere  is  not  a 
member  of  the  Supreme  Court  who  holds  that  doctrine ;  he  knows  that  every 
one  of  them,  as  shown  by  their  opinions,  holds  the  reverse.  Why  this 
attempt,  then,  to  bring  the  Supreme  Court  into  disrepute  among  the  people  ? 
It  looks  as  if  there  was  an  effort  being  made  to  destroy  public  couficlence  in 
the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on  earth.  Suppose  he  succeeds  in  destroying 
public  confidence  in  the  court,  so  that  the  people  will  not  respect  its  decisions 
but  will  feel  at  liberty  to  disregard  them  and  resist  the  laws  of  the  land, 

20 


226   .  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

what  will  he  have  gaiued  ?  He  will  have  changed  the  government  from  one 
of  laws  into  that  of  a  mob,  in  which  the  strong  arm  of  violence  will  he  sub- 
stituted for  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  justice.  He  complains  because  I 
did  not  go  into  an  argument  reviewing  Chief  Justice  Taney's  opinion,  and 
the  other  opinions  of  the  different  judges,  to  determine  whether  their  reasoning 
is  right  or  wrong  on  the  questions  of  law.  What  use  would  that  be  ?  He 
wants  to  take  an  appeal  from  the  Supreme  Court  to  this  meeting,  to  determine 
whether  the  questions  of  law  were  decided  properly.  He  is  going  to  appeal 
from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  every  town  meeting,  in  the 
hope  that  he  can  excite  a  prejudice  against  that  court,  and  on  the  wave  of 
that  prejudice  ride  into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  when  he  could  not 
get  there  on  his  own  principles  or  his  own  merits.  Suppose  he  should  succeed 
in  getting  into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  what  then  will  he  have  to 
do  with  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  ?  Can 
he  reverse  that  decision  when  he  gets  there  ?  Can  he  act  upon  it  ?  Has 
the  Senate  any  right  to  reverse  it  or  revise  it  ?  He  will  not  pretend  that 
it  has.  Then  why  drag  the  matter  into  tliis  contest,  unless  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  false  issue,  by  which  he  can  direct  public  attention  from  the 
real  issue. 

He  has  cited  General  Jackson  in  justification  of  the  war  he  is  making  on 
the  decision  of  the   court.     Mr.  Lincoln  misunderstands  the  history  of  the 
country  if  he  believes  there  is  any  parallel  in  the  two  cases.     It  is  true  that 
the  Supreme  Court  once  decided  that  if  a  Bank  of  the  United  States  was  a 
necessary  fiscal  agent  of  the  government,  it  was  constitutional,  and  if  not,  that 
it  was  unconstitutional,  and  also,  that  whether  or  not  it  was  necessary  for  that 
purpose,  was  a  political  question  for  Congress,  and  not  a  judicial  one  for  the 
courts  to  determine.     Hence  the  court  would  not  determine  the  bank  uncon- 
stitutional.    Jackson  respected  the  decision,  obeyed  the  law,  executed  it,  and 
carried  it  into  effect  during  its  existence ;  but  after  the  charter  of  the  bank 
expired,  and  a  proposition  was  made  to  create  a  new  bank.  General  Jackson 
said,  "  It  is  unnecessary  and  improper,  and  therefore  I  am  against  it  on  con- 
stitutional grounds  as  well  as  those  of  expediency."     Is  Congress  bound  to 
pass  every  Act  that  is  constitutional  ?     Why,  there  are  a  thousand  things  that 
are  constitutional,  but  yet  are  inexpedient  and  unnecessary,  and  you  surely 
would  not  vote  for  them  merely  because  you  had  the  right  to  ?     And  because 
General  Jackson  would  not  do  a  thing  which  he  had  a  rioht  to  do,  but  did  not 
deem  expedient  or  proper,  Mr.  Lincoln  is  going  to  justify  himself  in  doing  that 
which  he  has  no  right  to  do.     I  ask  him  whether  he  is  not  bound  to  respect 
and  obey  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  well  as  I  ?     The  Constitution 
has  created  that  court  to  decide  all  constitutional  questions  in  the  last  resort ; 
and  when  such  decisions  have  been  made,  they  become  the  law  of  the  land, 
and  you,  and  he,  and  myself,  and  every  other  good  citizen,  are  bound  by  them. 
Yet  he  argues  that  I  am  bound  by  their  decisions,  and  he  is  not.     He  says  that 
their  decisions  are  binding  on  Democrats,  but  not  on  Republicans.     Are  not 
Republicans  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land  as  well  as  Democrats  ?    And  when 
the  court  has  fixed  the  construction  of  the  Constitution  on  the  validity  of  a 
given  law,  is  not  their  decision  binding  upon  Republicans  as  well  as  upon 
Democrats  ?     Is  it  possible  that  you  Republicans  have  tlie  right  to  raise  your 
mobs  and  oppose  the  laws  of  the  laud  and  the  constituted  autliorities,  and  yet 
hold  us  Democrats  bound  to  obey  them  ?     My  time  is  within  half  a  minute 
of  expiring,  and  all  I  have  to  say  is,  that  I  stand  by  the  laws  of  the  land. 
I  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  by  the  laws  as  they  are 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  227 

enacted,  and  by  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  upon  all  points  within  their  juris- 
diction as  they  are  pronounced  by  the  highest  tribunal  on  earth ;  and  any 
man  who  resists  these  must  resort  to  mob  law  and  violence  to  overturn  the 
government  of  laws. 


SIXTH  JOINT   DEBATE,   AT   QUINCY. 

October  13,  1858. 

MR.   LINCOLN'S   SPEECH. 

LA.DIES  AND  Gentlemen  :  I  have  had  no  immediate  conference  with  Judge 
Douglas,  but  I  will  venture  to  say  that  he  and  I  will  perfectly  agree  that  your 
entire  silence,  both  when  I  speak  and  wdien  lie  speaks,  will  be  most  agreeable 
to  us. 

In  the  month  of  IMay,  1856,  the  elements  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  which 
have  since  been  consolidated  into  the  Eepublican  party,  assembled  together  in 
a  State  Convention  at  Bloomington.  They  adopted  at  that  time  what,  in  poli- 
tical language,  is  called  a  platform.  In  June  of  the  same  year  the  elements 
of  the  Republican  party  in  the  nation  assembled  together  in  a  National  Con- 
vention at  Philadelphia.  Tliey  adopted  what  is  called  the  National  Platform, 
In  June,  1858,  —  the  present  year,  —  the  Ptepublicans  of  Illinois  reassembled 
at  Springfield,  in  State  Convention,  and  adopted  again  their  platform,  as  I 
suppose  not  differing  in  any  essential  particular  from  either  of  the  former 
ones,  but  perhaps  adding  something  in  relation  to  the  new  developments  of 
political  progress  in  the  country. 

The  Convention  that  assembled  in  June  last  did  me  the  honor,  if  it  be  one, 
and  I  esteem  it  such,  to  nominate  me  as  their  candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate.  I  have  supposed  that,  in  entering  upon  this  canvass,  I  stood  generally 
upon  these  platforms.  We  are  now  met  together  on  the  13th  of  October  of 
the  same  year,  only  four  months  from  the  adoption  of  the  last  platform,  and  I 
am  unaware  that  in  this  canvass,  from  the  beginning  until  to-day,  any  one  of 
our  adversaries  has  taken  hold  of  our  platforms,  or  laid  his  finger  upon  anything 
that  he  calls  wrong  in  them. 

In  the  very  first  one  of  these  joint  discussions  between  Senator  Douglas  and 
myself.  Senator  Douglas,  without  alluding  at  all  to  these  platforms,  or  any  one 
of  them,  of  which  I  have  spoken,  attempted  to  hold  me  responsible  for  a  set 
of  resolutions  passed  long  before  the  meeting  of  either  one  of  these  Conven- 
tions of  which  I  have  spoken.     And  as  a  ground  for  holding  me  responsible 
for  these  resolutions,  he  assumed  that  they  had  been  passed  at  a  State  Conven- 
tion of  the  Republican  party,  and  that  I  took  part  in  that  Convention.     It 
was  discovered  afterward  that  this  was  erroneous,  that  the  resolutions  which 
he  endeavored  to  hold  me  responsible  for  had  not  been  passed  by  any  State 
Convention  anywhere,  —  had  not  been  passed  at  Springfield,  where  he  supposed 
they  had,  or  assumed  that  they  had,  and  that  they  had  been  passed  in  no 
Convention  in  which  I  had  taken   part.     The  Judge,  nevertheless,  was  not 
willing  to  give  up  the  point  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  make  upon  me,  and 
lie  therefore  thought  to  still  hold  me  to  the  point  that  he  was  endeavoring  to 


228  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

make,  by  showing  that  the  resolutions  that  he  read  liad  been  passed  at  a  local 
Convention  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State,  although  it  was  not  a  local  Con- 
vention that  embraced  my  residence  at  all,  nor  one  that  reached,  as  I  suppose, 
nearer  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  miles  of  where  I  was  wheu 
it  met,  nor  one  in  which  I  took  any  part  at  all.  He  also  introduced  other 
resolutions,  passed  at  other  meetings,  and  by  combining  the  whole,  although 
they  w^ere  all  antecedent  to  the  two  State  Conventions  and  tlie  one  National 
Convention  I  have  mentioned,  still  he  insisted,  and  now  insists,  as  I  under- 
stand, that  I  am  in  some  way  responsible  for  them. 

At  Jonesboro,  on  our  third  meeting,  I  insisted  to  the  Judge  that  I  was 
in  no  way  rightfully  held  responsible  for  the  proceedings  of  this  local  meeting 
or  Convention,  in  which  I  had  taken  no  part,  and  in  which  I  was  in  no  way 
embraced ;  but  I  insisted  to  him  that  if  he  thought  I  was  responsible  for  every 
man  or  every  set  of  men  everywhere,  who  happen  to  be  my  friends,  the  rule 
ought  to  work  both  ways,  and  he  ought  to  be  responsible  for  the  acts  and  reso- 
lutions of  all  men  or  sets  of  men  who  were  or  are  now  his  supporters  and 
friends,  and  gave  him  a  pretty  long  string  of  resolution.s,  passed  by  men  who 
are  now  his  friends,  and  announcing  doctrines  for  which  he  does  not  desire  to 
be  held  responsible. 

This  still  does  not  satisfy  Judge  Douglas.  He  still  adheres  to  his  proposi- 
tion, that  I  am  responsible  for  what  some  of  my  friends  in  different  parts  of 
the  State  have  done,  but  that  lie  is  not  responsible  for  what  his  have  done. 
At  least,  so  I  understand  him.  But  in  addition  to  that,  the  Judge,  at  our 
meeting  in  Galesburgh,  last  week,  undertakes  to  establish  that  I  am  guilty  of  a 
species  of  double  dealing  with  the  public ;  that  I  make  speeches  of  a  certain 
sort  in  the  north,  among  the  Abolitionists,  which  I  would  not  make  in  the 
south,  and  that  I  make  speeches  of  a  certain  sort  in  the  south  which  I  would 
not  make  in  the  north.  I  apprehend,  in  the  course  I  have  marked  out  for 
myself,  that  I  shall  not  have  to  dwell  at  very  great  length  upon  this  subject. 

As  this  was  done  in  the  Judge's  opening  speech  at  Galesburgh,  I  had  an 
opportunity,  as  I  had  the  middle  speech  then,  of  saying  something  in  answer 
to  it.  He  brought  forward  a  quotation  or  two  from  a  speech  of  mine  delivered 
at  Chicago,  and  then,  to  contrast  with  it,  he  brought  forwaixl  on  extract  from 
a  speech  of  mine  at  Charleston,  in  which  he  insisted  that  I  w^as  greatly  incon- 
sistent, and  insisted  that  his  conclusion  followed,  that  I  was  playing  a  double 
part,  and  speaking  in  one  region  one  way,  and  in  another  region  another  way. 
I  have  not  time  now  to  dwell  on  this  as  long  as  I  would  like,  and  wish  only 
now  to  requote  that  portion  of  my  speech  at  Charleston  which  the  Judge 
quoted,  and  then  make  some  comments  upon  it.  This  he  quotes  from  me  as 
being  delivered  at  Charleston,  and  I  believe  correctly  :  — 

"  I  will  say,  tlien,  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equalitj  of  the  white  and  black  races ;  that  I  am 
not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  quali- 
fying them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  intermarry  with  white  people ;  and  I  will  say,  in 
addition  to  this,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and  black  races 
which  will  ever  forbid  the  two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  political 
equality.  And  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live  while  they  do  remain  together,  there 
must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior.  I  am  as  much  as  any  other  man  in 
favor  of  having  the  superior  position  assigned  to  the  white  race." 

This,  I  believe,  is  the  entire  quotation  from  the  Charleston  speech,  as  J  udge 
Douglas  made  it.     His  comments  are  as  follows :  — 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  229 

"Yes,  here  you  find  men  who  hurrah  for  Lincoln,  and  say  he  is  right  when  he 
discards  all  distinction  between  races,  or  when  he  declares  that  he  discards  the  doc- 
trine that  tliere  is  such  a  thing  as  a  superior  and  inferior  race;  and  Abolitionists  are 
required  and  expected  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lincoln  because  he  goes  for  the  equality  of 
races,  holding  that  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  the  white  man  and  negro  were 
declared  equal,  and  endowed  by  divine  law  with  equality.  And  down  South,  with 
the  old  line  Whigs,  with  the  Kentuckians,  the  Virginians,  and  the  Tennesseeans, 
he  tells  you  that  there  is  a  ph^'sical  difference  between  the  races,  making  the  one 
superior,  the  other  inferior,  and  he  is  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  superiority  of  the 
white  race  over  the  negro." 


Those  are  the  Judge's  comments.  Now,  I  wish  to  show  you  that  a  month, 
or  only  lacking  three  days  of  a  month,  before  I  made  the  speech  at  Charleston, 
which  the  Judge  quotes  from,  he  had  liimself  heard  me  say  substantially  the 
same  thing.  It  was  in  our  first  meeting  at  Ottawa  —  and  I  will  say  a  word 
about  where  it  was,  and  the  atmosphere  it  was  in,  after  awhile  —  but  at  our 
first  meeting,  at  Ottawa,  I  read  an  extract  from  an  old  speech  of  mine,  made 
nearly  four  years  ago,  not  merely  to  show  my  sentiments,  but  to  show  that  my 
sentiments  were  long  entertained  and  openly  expressed ;  in  which  extract  I 
expressly  declared  that  my  own  feelings  would  not  admit  a  social  and  political 
equality  between  the  white  and  black  races,  and  that  even  if  my  ow^n  feelings 
would  admit  of  it,  I  still  knew  that  the  public  sentiment  of  the  country  would 
not,  and  that  sucli  a  thing  w^as  an  utter  impossibility,  or  substantially  that. 
That  extract  from  my  old  speech,  the  reporters,  by  some  sort  of  accident 
passed  over,  and  it  was  not  reported.  I  lay  no  blame  upon  anybody.  I  sup- 
pose they  thought  that  I  would  hand  it  over  to  them,  and  dropped  reporting 
while  I  was  reading  it,  but  after\\'ard  went  away  without  getting  it  from  me. 
At  the  end  of  that  quotation  from  my  old  speech,  which  I  read  at  Ottawa,  I 
made  the  comments  which  were  reported  at  that  time,  and  which  I  will  now 
read,  and  ask  you  to  notice  how  very  nearly  they  are  the  same  as  Judge 
Douglas  says  were  delivered  by  me,  down  in  Egypt.  After  reading,  I  added 
these  words  :  — 

"  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  great  length  ;  but  this  is  the  true 
complexion  of  all  I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  or  the 
black  race,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it  :  anything  that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of 
perfect  social  and  political  equality  with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastical 
arrangement  of  words  by  which  a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut 
horse.  I  will  say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  tliat  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  institution  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I 
have  no  right  to  do  so.  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so,  I  have  no  purpose  to  intro- 
duce political  and  social  equality  between  the  white  and  black  races.  There  is  a 
physical  difference  between  the  two  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  probably  forever 
forbid  their  living  together  on  the  footing  of  perfect  equality  ;  and  inasmuch  as  it 
becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  am 
in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having  the  superior  position.  I  have  never  said 
anything  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this,  there  is  no 
reason  in  the  world  why  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to  all  the  rights  enumerated  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  —  the  right  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness. I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man.  I  agree  with 
Judge  Douglas  that  he  is  not  my  equal  in  many  respects,  certainly  not  in  color,  perhaps 
not  in  intellectual  and  moral  endowments  ;  but  in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread,  without 
the  leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal 
of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the  equal  of  every  other  man." 


230  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

I  have  chiefly  introduced  this  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  Judge's 
charge  that  the  quotation  he  took  from  my  Charleston  speech  was  what  I 
would  say  down  South  among  the  Kentuckiaus,  the  Virginians,  etc.,  but  would 
not  say  in  the  regions  in  which  was  supposed  to  be  more  of  the  Abolition  ele- 
ment. I  now  make  this  comment  :  That  speech  from  which  I  have  now  read 
the  quotation,  and  which  is  there  given  correctly  —  perhaps  too  much  so  for 
good  taste  —  was  made  away  up  North  in  the  Abolition  District  of  this  State 
par  excellence,  in  the  Lovejoy  District,  —  in  the  personal  presence  of  Lovejoy, 
for  he  was  on  the  stand  with  us  when  I  made  it.  It  had  been  made  and  put 
in  print  in  that  region  only  three  da3's  less  than  a  month  before  the  speech 
made  at  Charleston,  the  like  of  which  Judge  Douglas  thinks  I  would  not  make 
where  there  was  any  Abolition  element.  I  only  refer  to  this  matter  to  say 
that  I  am  altogether  unconscious  of  having  attempted  any  double-dealing  any- 
where, that  upon  one  occasion  I  may  say  one  thing,  and  leave  other  things 
unsaid,  and  vice  versa  ;  but  that  I  have  said  anything  on  one  occasion  that  is 
inconsistent  with  what  I  have  said  elsewhere,  I  deny,  —  at  least  I  deny  it  so 
far  as  the  intention  is  concerned.  I  find  that  I  have  devoted  to  this  topic 
a  larger  portion  of  my  time  than  I  had  intended.  I  wished  to  show,  but  I 
will  pass  it  upon  this  occasion,  that  in  the  sentiment  I  have  occasionally 
advanced  upon  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  I  am  entirely  borne  out  b}'' 
the  sentiments  advanced  by  our  old  Whig  leader,  Henry  Clay,  and  I  have  the 
book  here  to  show  it  from  ;  but  because  I  have  already  occupied  more  time 
than  I  intended  to  do  on  that  topic,  I  pass  over  it. 

At  Gale.sburgh,  I  tried  to  show  that  by  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  pushed  to 
its  legitimate  consequences,  slavery  would  be  established  in  all  the  States  as 
well  as  in  the  Territories.  I  did  this  because,  upon  a  former  occasion,  I  had 
asked  Judge  Douglas  whether,  if  the  Supreme  Court  should  make  a  decision 
declaring  that  the  States  had  not  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits,  he  would  adopt  and  follow  that  decision  as  a  rule  of  political  action ; 
and  because  he  had  not  directly  answered  that  question,  but  had  merely  con- 
tented himself  with  sneering  at  it,  I  again  introduced  it,  and  tried  to  show 
that  the  conclusion  that  I  stated  followed  inevitably  and  logically  from  the 
proposition  already  decided  by  the  court.  Judge  Douglas  had  the  privilege 
of  replying  to  me  at  Galesburgh,  and  again  he  gave  me  no  direct  answer  as  to 
whether  he  would  or  would  not  sustain  such  a  decision  if  made.  I  "ive  him 
this  third  chance  to  say  yes  or  no.  He  is  not  obliged  to  do  either,  —  probabl}'" 
he  will  not  do  either ;  but  I  give  him  the  third  chance.  I  tried  to  show  then 
that  this  result,  this  conclusion,  inevitably  followed  from  the  point  already 
decided  by  the  court.  The  Judge,  in  his  reply,  again  sneers  at  the  thought  of 
the  court  making  any  such  decision,  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  upon 
this  subject  uses  the  language  which  I  will  now  read.  Speaking  of  me,  the 
Judge  says :  "  He  goes  on  and  insists  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  would  carry 
slavery  into  the  Free  States,  notwithstanding  the  decision  itself  says  the  con- 
trary." And  he  adds  :  "  Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  there  is  no  member  of  the 
Supreme  Court  that  holds  that  doctrine.  He  knows  that  every  one  of  them  in 
their  opinions  held  the  reverse." 

I  especially  introduce  this  subject  again,  for  the  purpose  of  saying  that  I 
have  the  Dred  Scott  decision  here,  and  I  will  thank  Judge  Douglas  to  lay  his 
finger  upon  the  place  in  the  entire  opinions  of  the  court  where  any  one  of 
them  "says  the  contrary."  It  is  very  hard  to  affirm  a  negative  with  entire 
confidence.  I  say,  however,  that  I  have  examined  that  decision  with  a  good 
deal  of  care,  as  a  lawyer  examines  a  decision,  and,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  231 

to  do  so,  the  court  has  nowhere  in  its  opinions  said  that  the  States  have  the 
power  to  exclude  slav^ery,  nor  have  they  used  other  language  substantially 
that.  I  also  say,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  not  one  of  the  concurring  Judges  has 
said  that  the  States  can  exclude  slavery,  nor  said  anything  that  was  sub- 
stantially that.  The  nearest  approach  that  any  one  of  them  has  made  to  it, 
so  far  as  I  can  find,  was  by  Judge  Nelson,  and  the  approach  he  made  to  it  was 
exactly,  in  substance,  tlie  Nebraska  Bill,  —  that  the  States  had  the  exclusive 
power  over  the  question  of  slavery,  so  far  as  they  are  not  limited  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  I  asked  the  question,  therefore,  if  the  non- 
concurring  Judges,  McLean  or  Curtis,  had  asked  to  get  an  express  declaration 
that  the  States  could  absolutely  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  what  reason 
have  we  to  believe  that  it  would  not  liave  been  voted  down  by  the  majority 
of  the  Judges,  just  as  Chase's  amendment  was  voted  down  by  Judge  Douglas 
and  his  compeers  when  it  was  offered  to  the  Nebraska  Bill. 

Also,  at  Galesburgh,  I  said  something  in  regard  to  those  Springfield  resolu- 
tions that  Judge  Douglas  had  attempted  to  use  upon  me  at  Ottawa,  and 
commented  at  some  length  upon  the  fact  that  they  were,  as  presented,  not 
genuine.  Judge  Douglas  in  his  reply  to  me  seemed  to  be  somewhat  exasper- 
ated. He  said  he  would  never  have  believed  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  as  he 
kindly  called  me,  would  have  attempted  such  a  thing  as  I  had  attempted 
upon  tliat  occasion ;  and  among  other  expressions  which  he  used  toward  me, 
was  that  I  dared  to  say  forgery,  —  that  I  had  dared  to  say  forgery  [turning  to 
Judge  Douglas].  Yes,  Judge,  I  did  dare  to  say  forgery.  But  in  this  political 
canvass,  the  Judge  ought  to  remember  that  I  was  not  the  first  who  dared  to 
say  forgery.  At  Jacksonville,  Judge  Douglas  made  a  speech  in  answer  to 
something  said  by  Judge  Trumbull,  and  at  the  close  of  what  he  said  upon 
that  subject,  he  dared  to  say  that  Trumbull  had  forged  his  evidence.  He 
said,  too,  that  he  should  not  concern  himself  with  Trumbull  any  more,  but 
thereafter  he  should  hold  Lincoln  responsible  for  the  slanders  upon  him. 
When  I  met  him  at  Charleston  after  that,  although  I  think  that  I  should  not 
have  noticed  the  subject  if  he  had  not  said  he  would  hold  me  responsible 
for  it,  I  spread  out  before  him  the  statements  of  the  evidence  that  Judge 
Trumbull  had  used,  and  I  asked  Judge  Douglas,  piece  by  piece,  to  put  his 
finger  upon  one  piece  of  all  that  evidence  that  he  would  say  was  a  forgery ! 
When  I  went  through  with  each  and  every  piece,  Judge  Douglas  did  not 
dare  then  to  say  that  any  piece  of  it  was  a  forgery.  So  it  seems  that  there 
are  some  things  that  Judge  Douglas  dares  to  do,  and  some  that  he  dares  not 
to  do. 

A  voice  :  It 's  the  same  thing  with  you. 

Mr.  Lincoln:  Yes,  sir,  it's  the  same  thing  with  me.  I  do  dare  to  say 
forgery  when  it 's  true,  and  don't  dare  to  say  forgery  when  it 's  false.  Now  I 
will  say  here  to  this  audience  and  to  Judge  Douglas,  I  have  not  dared  to  say 
he  committed  a  forgery,  and  I  never  shall  until  I  know  it ;  but  I  did  dare  to 
say  —  just  to  suggest  to  the  Judge  —  that  a  forgery  had  been  committed, 
which  by  his  own  showing  had  been  traced  to  him  and  two  of  his  friends.  I 
dared  to  suggest  t^him  that  he  had  expressly  promised  in  one  of  his  public 
speeches  to  investigate  that  matter,  and  I  dared  to  suggest  to  him  that  there 
was  an  implied  promise  that  when  he  investigated  it  he  would  make  known 
the  result.  I  dared  to  suggest  to  the  Judge  that  he  could  not  expect  to  be 
quite  clear  of  suspicion  of  that  fraud,  for  since  the  time  that  promise  was 
made  he  had  been  with  those  friends,  and  had  not  kept  his  promise  in  regard 
to  the  investigation  and  the  report  upon  it.     I  am  not  a  very  daring  man,  but 


232  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

I  dared  that  much,  Judge,  and  I  am  not  much  scared  about  it  yet.  When 
the  Judge  says  he  vvoukl  n't  have  believed  of  Abraham  Lincoln  that  he  would 
have  made  such  an  attempt  as  that,  he  reminds  me  of  the  fact  that  he  entered 
upon  this  canvass  with  the  purpose  to  treat  me  courteously ;  that  touched  me 
somewhat.  It  sets  me  to  thinking.  I  was  aware,  when  it  was  first  agreed 
that  Judge  Douglas  and  I  were  to  have  these  seven  joint  discussions,  that 
they  were  the  successive  acts  of  a  drama,  —  perhaps  I  should  say,  to  be  enacted, 
not  merely  in  the  face  of  audiences  like  this,  but  in  tlie  face  of  the  nation, 
and  to  some  extent,  by  my  relation  to  him,  and  not  from  anything  in  myself, 
in  the  face  of  the  world  ;  and  I  am  anxious  that  they  sliould  be  conducted 
with  dignity  and  in  the  good  temper  which  would  be  befitting  the  vast  audi- 
ence before  which  it  was  conducted.  But  when  Judge  Douolas  sfot  home 
from  Washington  and  made  his  first  speech  in  Chicago,  the  evening  afterward 
I  made  some  sort  of  a  reply  to  it.  His  second  speech  was  made  at  Blooming- 
ton,  in  which  he  commented  upon  my  speech  at  Chicago,  and  said  that  I  had 
used  language  ingeniously  contrived  to  conceal  my  intentions,  —  or  words  to 
that  effect.  Now,  I  understand  that  this  is  an  imputation  upon  my  veracity 
and  my  candor.  I  do  not  know  what  the  Judge  understood  by  it,  but  in  our 
first  discussion,  at  Ottawa,  he  led  off  by  charging  a  bargain,  somewhat  corrupt 
in  its  character,  upon  Trumbull  and  myself,  —  that  we  had  entered  into  a 
bargain,  one  of  the  terms  of  which  was  that  Trumbull  was  to  Abolitionize  the 
old  Democratic  party,  and  I  (Lincoln)  was  to  Abolitionize  the  old  Whig 
party ;  I  pretending  to  be  as  good  an  old  line  Whig  as  ever.  Judge  Douglas 
may  not  understand  that  lie  implicated  my  truthfulness  and  my  honor  when 
he  said  I  was  doing  one  thing  and  pretending  another ;  and  I  misunderstood 
him  if  he  thought  he  was  treating  me  in  a  dignified  way,  as  a  man  of  honor 
and  truth,  as  he  now  claims  he  was  disposed  to  treat  me.  Even  after  that 
time,  at  Galesburgh,  when  he  brings  forward  an  extract  from  a  speech  made  at 
Chicago,  and  an  extract  from  a  speech  made  at  Charleston,  to  prove  that  I 
was  trying  to  play  a  double  part,  —  that  I  was  trying  to  cheat  the  public,  and 
get  votes  upon  one  set  of  principles  at  one  place,  and  upon  another  set  of 
principles  at  another  place,  —  I  do  not  understand  but  what  he  impeaches  my 
honor,  my  veracity,  and  my  candor ;  and  because  he  does  this,  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  I  am  bound,  if  I  see  a  truthful  ground  for  it,  to  keep  my  hands  off 
of  him.  As  soon  as  I  learned  that  Judge  Douglas  was  disposed  to  treat  me 
in  this  way,  I  signified  in  one  of  my  speeches  that  I  should  be  driven  to  draw 
upon  whatever  of  humble  resources  I  miglit  have,  —  to  adopt  a  new  course 
with  him.  I  was  not  entirely  sure  that  I  should  be  able  to  hold  my  own 
wdth  him,  but  I  at  least  had  the  purpose  made  to  do  as  well  as  I  could  upon 
him  ;  and  now  I  say  that  I  will  not  be  the  first  to  cry  "  hold."  I  think  it 
originated  with  the  Judge  and  when  he  quits,  I  probably  will.  But  I  shall 
not  ask  any  favors  at  alL  He  asks  me,  or  he  asks  the  audience,  if  I  wish  to 
push  this  matter  to  the  point  of  personal  difficulty.  I  tell  him,  no.  He  did 
not  make  a  mistake,  in  one  of  his  early  speeches,  when  he  called  me  an 
"  amiable  "  man,  though  perhaps  he  did  when  he  called  me  an  "  intelligent " 
man.  It  really  hurts  me  very  much  to  suppose  tliat  I  have  wronged  anybody 
on  earth.  I  again  tell  him,  no  !  I  very  much  prefer,  when  this  canvass  shall 
be  over,  however  it  may  result,  that  we  at  least  part  without  any  bitter  recol- 
lections of  personal  difficulties. 

The  Judge,  in  his  concluding  speech  at  Galesburgh,  says  that  I  was  push- 
ing this  matter  to  a  personal  difficulty,  to  avoid  the  responsibility  for  the 
enormity  of  my  principles.     I  say  to  the  Judge  and  this  audience,  now,  that 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  233 

I  will  again  state  our  principles  as  well  as  T  hastily  can,  in  all  their  enormity 
and  if  the  Judge  hereafter  chooses  to  confine  himself  to  a  war  upon  these 
principles,  he  will  probably  not  find  me  departing  from  the  same  course. 

We  have  in  this  nation  this  element  of  domestic  slavery.  It  is  a  matter 
of  absolute  certainty  that  it  is  a  disturbing  element.  It  is  the  opinion  of  all 
the  great  men  who  have  expressed  an  opinion  upon  it,  that  it  is  a  dangerous 
element.  We  keep  up  a  controversy  in  regard  to  it.  That  controversy 
necessarily  springs  from  difference  of  opinion;  and  if  we  can  learn  exactly  — 
can  reduce  to  the  lowest  elements  —  what  that  difference  of  opinion  is,  we 
perhaps  shall  be  better  prepared  for  discussing  the  different  systems  of  policy 
that  we  would  propose  in  regard  to  that  disturbing  element.  I  suggest  that 
the  difference  of  opinion,  reduced  to  its  lowest  of  terms,  is  no  other  than  the  dif- 
ference between  the  men  who  think  slavery  a  wrong,  and  those  who  do  not  think 
it  wrong.  The  Kepublican  party  think  it  wrong ;  we  think  it  is  a  moral,  a 
social,  and  a  political  wrong.  We  think  it  as  a  wrong  not  confining  itself 
merely  to  the  persons  or  the  States  where  it  exists,  but  that  it  is  a  wrong  in 
its  tendency,  to  say  the  least,  that  extends  itself  to  the  existence  of  the  whole 
nation.  Because  we  think  it  wrong,  we  propose  a  course  of  policy  that  shall 
deal  with  it  as  a  wrong.  We  deal  with  it  as  with  any  other  wrong,  in  so  far 
as  we  can  prevent  its  growing  any  larger,  and  so  deal  with  it  that  in  the 
run  of  time  there  may  be  some  promise  of  an  end  to  it.  We  have  a  due 
regard  to  the  actual  presence  of  it  amongst  us,  and  the  difficulties  of  getting 
rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory  way,  and  all  the  constitutional  obligations  thrown 
about  it.  I  suppose  that  in  reference  both  to  its  actual  existence  in  the 
nation,  and  to  our  constitutional  obligations,  we  have  no  right  at  all  to  disturb 
it  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  and  we  profess  that  we  have  no  more  inclina- 
tion to  disturb  it  than  we  have  the  right  to  do  it.  We  go  further  than  that : 
we  don't  propose  to  disturb  it  where,  in  one  instance,  we  think  the  Consti- 
tution would  permit  us.  We  think  the  Constitution  would  permit  us  to 
disturb  it  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Still,  we  do  not  propose  to  do  that, 
unless  it  should  be  in  terms  which  I  don't  suppose  the  nation  is  very  likely 
soon  to  agree  to,  —  the  terms  of  making  the  emancipation  gradual,  and 
compensating  the  unwilling  owners.  Where  we  suppose  we  have  the  consti- 
tutional right,  we  restrain  ourselves  in  reference  to  the  actual  existence  of  the 
institution  and  the  difficulties  thrown  about  it.  We  also  oppose  it  as  an 
evil  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  spread  itself.  We  insist  on  the  policy  that  shall 
restrict  it  to  its  present  limits.  We  don't  suppose  that  in  doing  this  we 
violate  anything  due  to  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution,  or  anything  due 
to  the  constitutional  guarantees  thrown  around  it. 

We  oppose  tlie  Dred  Scott  decision  in  a  certain  way,  upon  which  I  ought 
perhaps  to  address  you  a  few  words.  We  do  not  propose  that  when  Dred 
Scott  has  been  decided  to  be  a  slave  by  the  court,  we,  as  a  mob,  will  decide 
him  to  be  free.  We  do  not  propose  that,  when  any  other  one,  or  one 
thousand,  shall  be  decided  by  that  court  to  be  slaves,  we  will  in  any  violent 
way  disturb  the  rights  of  property  thus  settled  ;  but  we  nevertheless  do 
oppose  that  decision  as  a  political  rule  which  shall  be  binding  on  the  voter  to 
vote  for  nobody  who  thinks  it  wrong,  which  shall  be  binding  on  the  members 
of  Congress  or  the  President  to  favor  no  measure  that  does  not  actually 
conciir  with  the  principles  of  that  decision.  We  do  not  propose  to  be  bound 
by  it  as  a  political  rule  in  that  way,  because  we  think  it  lays  the  foundation, 
not  merely  of  enlarging  and  spreading  out  what  we  consider  an  evil,  but  it 
lays  the  foundation  for  spreading  that  evil  into  the  States  themselves.     We 

30 


234  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

propose  so  resisting  it  as  to  have  it  reversed  if  we  can,  and  a  new  judicial  rule 
established  upon  this  subject. 

I  will  add  this,  that  if  there  be  any  man  who  does  not  believe  that  slavery 
is  wrong  in  the  three  aspects  which  I  have  mentioned,  or  in  any  one  of  them, 
that  man  is  misplaced,  and  ought  to  leave  us.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if 
there  be  any  man  in  the  Kepublican  party  who  is  impatient  over  the  necessity 
springing  from  its  actual  presence,  and  is  impatient  of  the  constitutional 
guarantees  thrown  around  it,  and  would  act  in  disregard  of  these,  he  too  is 
misplaced,  standing  with  us.  He  will  find  his  place  somewhere  else ;  for  we 
have  a  due  regard,  so  far  as  we  are  capable  of  understanding  them,  for  all 
these  things.  This,  gentlemen,  as  well  as  I  can  give  it,  is  a  plain  statement 
of  our  principles  in  all  their  enormity. 

I  will  say  now  that  there  is  a  sentiment  in  the  country  contrary  to  me,  — 
a  sentiment  which  holds  that  slavery  is  not  wrong,  and  therefore  it  goes  for 
the  policy  that  does   not  propose  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong.     That  policy 
is  the  Democratic  policy,  and  that  sentiment  is  the  Democratic  sentiment. 
If  there  be  a  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  one  of  this  vast  audience  that  this 
is  really  the  central  idea  of  the  Democratic  party  in  relation  to  this  subject, 
I  ask  him  to  bear  with  me  while  I  state  a  few  things  tending,  as   I  think,  to 
prove  that  proposition.     In  the  first  place,  the  leading  man  —  I  think  I  may 
do  my  friend  Judge  Douglas  the  honor  of  calling  him  such  —  advocating  the 
present  Democratic  policy,  never  himself  says  it  is  wrong.     He  has  the  high 
distinction,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  never  having  said  slavery  is  either  right  or 
wrong.     Almost  everybody  else  says  one  or  the  other,  but  the  Judge  never 
does.     If  there  be  a  man  in  the  Democratic  party  who  thinks  it  is  wrong,  and 
yet  clings  to  that  party,  I  suggest  to  him,  in  the  first  place,  that  his  leader 
don't  talk  as  he  does,  for  he  never  says  that  it  is  wrong.     In  the   second 
place,  I  suggest  to  him  that  if  he  will  examine  the  policy  proposed  to  be 
carried  forward,  he  will  find  that  he  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is 
anything  wrong  iu  it.     If  you  will  examine  the  arguments  that  are  made  on 
it,  you  will  find  that  every  one  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  any- 
thing wrong  iu  slavery.     Perhaps  that  Democrat  who  says  he  is  as  much 
opposed  to  slavery  as  I  am,  will  tell  me  that  I  am  wrong  about  this.     I  wish 
him  to  examine  his  own  course  in  regard  to  this  matter  a  moment,  and  then 
see  if  his  opinion  will  not  be  changed  a  little.     You  say  it  is  wrong ;  but 
don't  you  constantly  object  to  anybody  else  saying  so?     Do  you  not  con- 
stantly argue  that  this  is  not  the  right  place  to  oppose  it  ?     You  say  it  must 
not  be  opposed  in  the  Free  States,  because  slavery  is  not  here ;  it  must  not  be 
opposed  in  the  Slave  States,  because  it  is  there  ;  it  must  not  be  opposed  in 
politics,  because  that  will  make  a  fuss  ;  it  must  not  be  opposed  in  the  pulpit, 
because  it  is  not  religion.     Then  wdiere  is  the  place  to  oppose  it  ?     There  is 
no  suitable  place  to  oppose  it.     There  is  no  plan  in  the  country  to  oppose 
this  evil    overspreading   the    continent,  which   you  say  yourself  is  coming. 
Frank  Blair  and  Gratz  BroAvn  tried  to  get  up  a  system  of  gradual  emancijia- 
tion   in  Missouri,   had   an  election  in  August,   and  got  beat,   and  you,  Mr. 
Democrat,  threw  up  your  hat,  and  hallooed  "  Hurrah  for  Democracy."     So  I 
say,  again,  that  in   regard  to  the   arguments    that   are    made,  when  Judge 
Douglas  says  he  "  don't  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  up  or  voted  down," 
whether  he  means  that  as  an  individual  expression  of  sentiment,  or  only  as  a 
sort  of  statement  of  his  views  on  national  policy,  it  is  alike  true  to  say  that 
he  can  thus  argue  logically  if    he  don't  see  any  tiling  wrong  in  it ;    but  he 
cannot  say  so  logically  if  he  admits  that  slavery  is  wrong.     He  cannot  say 


AND  STEPHEN  A  DOUGLAS.  235 

that  he  would  as  soon  see  a  wrong  voted  up  as  voted  down.  "When  Judge 
Douglas  says  that  whoever  or  whatever  community  wants  slaves,  they  have  a 
right  to  have  them,  he  is  perfectly  logical,  if  there  is  nothing  wrong  in  the 
institution ;  but  if  you  admit  that  it  is  wrong,  he  cannot  logically  say  that 
anybody  has  a  right  to  do  wrong.  When  he  says  that  slave  property  and 
horse  and  hog  property  are  alike  to  be  allowed  to  go  into  the  Territories,  upon 
the  principles  of  equality,  he  is  reasoning  truly,  if  there  is  no  difference 
between  them  as  property ;  but  if  the  one  is  property  held  rightfully,  and  the 
other  is  wrong,  then  there  is  no  equality  between  the  right  and  wrong ;  so 
that,  turu  it  in  any  way  you  can,  in  all  the  arguments  sustaining  the  Demo- 
cratic policy,  and  in  that  policy  itself,  there  is  a  careful,  studied  exclusion  of 
the  idea  that  there  is  anything  wrong  in  slavery.  Let  us  understand  this.  I  am 
not,  just  here,  trying  to  prove  that  we  are  right,  and  they  are  wrong.  I  have  been 
stating  where  we  and  they  stand,  and  trying  to  show  what  is  the  real  differ- 
ence between  us ;  and  I  now  say  that  whenever  we  can  get  the  question 
distinctly  stated,  can  get  all  these  men  who  believe  that  slavery  is  in  some  of 
these  respects  wrong,  to  stand  and  act  with  us  in  treating  it  as  a  wrong,  — 
then,  and  not  till  then,  I  think  we  will  in  some  way  come  to  an  end  of  this 
slavery  agitation. 


MR.   DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  Permit  me  to  say  that  unless  silence  is  observed 
it  will  be  impossible  for  me  to  be  heard  by  this  immense  crowd,  and  my 
friends  can  confer  no  higher  favor  upon  me  than  by  omitting  all  expressions 
of  applause  or  approbation.  I  desire  to  be  heard  rather  than  to  be  applauded. 
I  wish  to  address  myself  to  your  reason,  your  judgment,  your  sense  of  justice, 
and  not  to  your  passions. 

I  regret  that  Mr.  Lincoln  should  have  deemed  it  proper  for  him  to  again 
indulge  in  gross  personalities  and  base  insinuations  in  regard  to  the  Springfield 
resolutions.  It  has  imposed  upon  me  the  necessity  of  using  some  portion  of 
my  time  for  the  purpose  of  calling  your  attention  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
it  will  then  be  for  you  to  say  what  you  think  of  a  man  who  can  predicate 
such  a  charge  upon  the  circumstances  as  lie  has  in  this.  I  had  seen  the 
platform  adopted  by  a  Republican  Congressional  Convention  held  in  Aurora, 
the  Second  Congressional  District,  in  September,  1854,  published  as  purport- 
ing to  be  the  platform  of  the  Republican  party.  That  platform  declared  that 
the  Republican  party  was  pledged  never  to  admit  another  Slave  State  into 
the  Union,  and  also  that  it  was  pledged  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  Terri- 
tories of  the  United  States,  not  only  all  that  we  then  had,  but  all  that  we 
should  thereafter  acquire,  and  to  repeal  unconditionally  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law,  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  prohibit  the  slave-trade 
between  the  different  States.  These  and  other  articles  against  slavery  were 
contained  in  this  platform,  and  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Republican  Con- 
gressional Convention  in  that  District.  I  had  also  seen  that  the  Republican 
Congressional  Conventions  at  Rockford,  in  the  First  District,  and  at  Bloom- 
ington,  in  the  Third,  had  adopted  the  same  platform  that  year,  nearly  word 
for  word,  and  had  declared  it  to  be  the  platform  of  the  Republican  party.  I 
had  noticed  that  ]\Iajor  Thomas  L.  Harris,  a  member  of  Congress  from  the 
Springfield  District,  had  referred  to  that  platform  in  a  speech  in  Congress  as 


236  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

having  been  adopted  by  the  first  Republican  State  Convention  which  as- 
embled  in  Illinois.  "When  I  had  occasion  to  use  the  fact  in  this  canvass,  I 
wrote  to  Major  Harris  to  know  on  what  day  that  Convention  was  held,  and 
to  ask  him  to  send  me  its  proceedings.  He  being  sick,  Charles  H.  Lanphier 
answered  my  letter  by  sending  me  the  published  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
vention held  at  Springfield  on  the  5th  of  October,  1854,  as  they  appeared  in 
the  report  of  the  "State  Eegister."  I  read  those  resolutions  from  tliat  news- 
paper the  same  as  any  of  you  would  refer  back  and  quote  any  fact  from  the 
files  of  a  newspaper  which  had  published  it.  Mr.  Lincoln  pretends  that  after 
I  had  so  quoted  those  resolutions  he  discovered  that  they  had  never  been 
adopted  at  Springfield.  He  does  not  deny  their  adoption  by  the  Eepublican 
party  at  Aurora,  at  Bloomington,  and  at  Eockford,  and  by  nearly  all  the 
Eepublican  County  Conventions  in  Northern  Illinois  where  his  party  is  in  a 
majority,  but  merely  because  they  were  not  adopted  on  the  "  spot "  on  which 
I  said  they  were,  he  chooses  to  quibble  about  the  place  rather  than  meet  and 
discuss  the  merits  of  the  resolutions  themselves.  I  stated  when  I  quoted  them 
that  I  did  so  from  the  "  State  Eegister."  I  gave  my  authority.  Lincoln 
believed  at  the  time,  as  he  has  since  admitted,  that  they  had  been  adopted  at 
Springfield,  as  published.  Does  he  believe  now  that  I  did  not  tell  the  truth 
when  I  quoted  those  resolutions  ?  He  knows,  in  his  heart,  that  I  quoted  them 
in  good  faith  believing  at  the  time  that  they  had  been  adopted  at  Springfield. 
I  would  consider  myself  an  infamous  wretch,  if,  under  such  circumstances, 
I  could  charge  any  man  with  being  a  party  to  a  trick  or  a  fraud.  And  I  will 
tell  him,  too,  that  it  will  not  do  to  charge  a  forgery  on  Charles  H.  Lanphier 
or  Thomas  L.  Harris.  No  man  on  earth,  who  knows  them,  and  knows 
Lincoln,  would  take  his  oath  against  their  word.  There  are  not  two  men  in 
the  State  of  Illinois  who  have  higher  characters  for  truth,  for  integrity,  for 
moral  character,  and  for  elevation  of  tone,  as  gentlemen,  than  Mr.  Lanphier 
and  Mr.  Harris.  Any  man  who  attempts  to  make  such  charges  as  Mr. 
Lincoln  has  indulged  in  against  them,  only  proclaims  himself  a  slanderer. 

I  will  now  show  you  that  I  stated  with  entire  fairness,  as  soon  as  it  was  made 
known  to  me,  that  there  was  a  mistake  about  the  spot  where  the  resolutions 
had  been  adopted,  although  their  truthfulness,  as  a  declaration  of  the  principles 
of  the  Eepublican  party,  had  not  and  could  not  be  questioned.  I  did  not  wait 
for  Lincoln  to  point  out  the  mistake,  but  the  moment  I  discovered  it,  I  made 
a  speech,  and  published  it  to  the  w^orld,  correcting  the  error.  I  corrected  it 
myself,  as  a  gentleman  and  an  honest  man,  and  as  I  always  feel  proud  to  do 
when  I  have  made  a  mistake.  I  wish  Mr.  Lincoln  could  show  that  he  has 
acted  with  equal  fairness  and  truthfulness  when  I  have  convinced  him  that  he 
has  been  mistaken.  I  will  give  you  an  illustration  to  show  you  how  he  acts 
in  a  similar  case :  In  a  speech  at  Springfield,  he  charged  Chief  Justice  Taney 
and  his  associates,  President  Pierce,  President  Buchanan,  and  myself,  with 
having  entered  into  a  conspiracy  at  the  time  the  Nebraska  bill  was  intro- 
duced, by  which  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  to  be  made  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  order  to  carry  slavery  everywhere  under  the  Constitution.  I  called 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  alluded  to,  to  wit,  the  introduction  of 
the  Nebraska  bill,  it  was  not  possible  that  such  a  conspiracy  could  have  been 
entered  into,  for  the  reason  that  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  never  been  taken 
before  the  Supreme  Court,  and  was  not  taken  before  it  for  a  year  after ;  and  I 
asked  him  to  take  back  that  charge.  Did  he  do  it  ?  I  showed  him  that  it 
was  impossible  that  the  charge  could  be  true ;  I  proved  it  by  the  record  ;  and 
I  then  called  upon  him  to  retract  his  false  charge.     What  was  his  answer  ? 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  237 

Instead  of  coming  out  like  an  honest  man  and  doing  so,  he  reiterated  the 
charge,  and  said  that  if  the  case  had  not  gone  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  from 
the  courts  of  Missouri  at  the  time  he  charged  that  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  entered  into  the  conspiracy,  yet,  that  there  was  an  understanding  with 
the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  that  they  would  take  it  up.  I  have 
since  asked  him  who  the  Democratic  owners  of  Dred  Scott  were,  but  he  could 
not  tell,  and  why  ?  Because  there  were  no  such  Democratic  owners  in 
existence.  Dred  Scott  at  the  time  was  owned  by  the  Eev.  Dr.  Chaffee,  an 
Abolition  member  of  Congress,  of  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  in  right  of  his 
wife.  He  was  owned  by  one  of  Lincoln's  friends,  and  not  by  Democrats  at 
all ;  his  case  was  conducted  in  court  by  Abolition  lawyers,  so  that  both  the 
prosecution  and  the  defence  were  in  tlie  hands  of  the  Abolition  political 
friends  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Notwithstanding  I  thus  proved  by  the  record  that 
his  charge  against  the  Supreme  Court  was  false,  instead  of  taking  it  back,  he 
resorted  to  another  false  charge  to  sustain  the  infamy  of  it.  He  also  charged 
President  Buchanan  with  having  been  a  party  to  the  conspiracy.  I  directed 
his  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  charge  could  not  possibly  be  true,  for  the 
reason  that  at  the  time  specified,  Mr.  Buchanan  was  not  in  America,  but  was 
three  thousand  miles  off,  representing  the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  St. 
James,  and  had  been  there  for  a  year  previous,  and  did  not  return  until  three 
years  afterward.  Yet  I  never  could  get  Mr.  Lincoln  to  take  back  his  false 
charge,  although  I  have  called  upon  him  over  and  over  again.  He  refuses  to 
do  it,  and  either  remains  silent,  or  resorts  to  other  tricks  to  try  and  palm  his 
slander  off  on  the  country.  Therein  you  will  find  the  difference  between  Mr. 
Lincoln  and  myself.  When  I  make  a  mistake,  as  an  honest  man  I  correct  it 
without  being  asked  to  do  so  ;  but  when  he  makes  a  false  charge,  he  sticks 
to  it,  and  never  corrects  it.  One  word  more  in  regard  to  these  resolutions ; 
I  quoted  them  at  Ottawa  merely  to  ask  Mr.  Lincoln  whether  he  stood  on  that 
platform.  That  was  the  purpose  for  which  I  quoted  them.  I  did  not  think 
that  I  had  a  right  to  put  idle  questions  to  him,  and  I  first  laid  a  foundation 
for  my  questions  by  showing  that  the  principles  which  I  wished  him  either  to 
affirm  or  deny  had  been  adopted  by  some  portion  of  his  friends,  at  least,  as 
their  creed.  Hence  I  read  the  resolutions  and  put  the  questions  to  him ;  and 
he  then  refused  to  answer  them.  Subsequently,  one  week  afterward,  he  did 
answer  a  part  of  them,  but  tfie  others  he  has  not  answered  up  to  this  day. 

Now,  let  me  call  your  attention  for  a  moment  to  the  answers  which  Mr. 
Lincoln  made  at  Freeport  to  the  questions  which  I  propounded  him  at  Ot- 
tawa, based  upon  the  platform  adopted  by  a  majority  of  the  Abolition  counties 
of  the  State,  which  now,  as  then,  supported  him.  In  answer  to  my  question 
whether  he  indorsed  the  Black  Eepublican  principle  of  "  no  more  Slave  States," 
he  answered  that  he  was  not  pledged  against  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave 
States,  but  that  he  would  be  very  sorry  if  he  should  ever  be  placed  in  a  posi- 
tion where  he  would  have  to  vote  on  the  question  ;  that  he  would  rejoice  to 
know  that  no  more  Slave  States  would  be  admitted  into  the  Union.  "  But," 
he  added,  "  if  slavery  shall  be  kept  out  of  the  Territories  during  the  Territorial 
existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the  people  shall,  having  a  fair 
chance  and  a  clear  field  when  they  come  to  adopt  the  constitution,  do  such  an 
extraordinary  thing  as  to  adopt  a  slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual 
presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the 
country,  but  to  admit  tiiem  into  the  Union."  The  point  I  wish  him  to  answer 
is  this :  Suppose  Congress  should  not  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territory,  and  it 
applied  for  admission  with  a  constitution  recognizing  slavery,  then  how  would 


238  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

he  vote  ?  His  answer  at  Freeport  does  not  apply  to  any  territory  in  America. 
I  ask  you  [turning  to  Lincoln],  will  you  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union, 
with  just  such  a  constitution  as  her  people  want,  with  slavery  or  without,  as 
they  shall  determine  ?  He  will  not  answer.  I  have  put  that  question  to  him 
time  and  time  again,  and  have  not  been  able  to  get  an  answer  out  of  him.  I 
ask  you  again,  Lincoln,  will  you  vote  to  admit  New  ^Mexico,  when  she  has  the 
requisite  population,  with  such  a  constitution  as  her  people  adopt,  either  recog- 
nizing slavery  or  not,  as  they  shall  determine  ?  He  will  not  answer,  I  put 
the  same  question  to  him  in  reference  to  Oregon  and  the  new  States  to  be 
carved  out  of  Texas,  in  pursuance  of  the  contract  between  Texas  and  the 
LTnited  States,  and  he  will  not  answer.  He  will  not  answer  these  questions 
in  reference  to  any  territory  now  in  existence,  but  says  that  if  Congress  should 
prohibit  slavery  in  a  Territory,  and  when  its  people  asked  for  admission  as  a 
State,  they  should  adopt  slavery  as  one  of  their  institutions,  that  he  supposes 
he  would  have  to  let  it  come  in.  I  submit  to  you  whether  that  answer  of  his 
to  my  question  does  not  justify  me  in  saying  that  he  has  a  fertile  genius  in 
devising  lamjuaije  to  conceal  his  thoughts.  I  ask  you  whether  there  is  an 
intelligent  man  in  America  who  does  not  believe  that  that  answer  was  made 
for  the  purpose  of  concealing  what  he  intended  to  do.  He  wished  to  make 
the  old  line  Whigs  believe  that  he  would  stand  by  the  Compromise  Measures 
of  1850,  which  declared  that  the  States  might  come  into  the  Union  with 
slavery,  or  without,  as  they  pleased,  while  Lovejoy  and  his  Abolition  allies 
up  north  explained  to  the  Abolitionists  that  in  taking  this  ground  he  preached 
good  Abolition  doctrine,  because  his  proviso  would  not  apply  to  any  territory 
in  America,  and  therefore  there  was  no  chance  of  his  being  governed  by  it. 
It  would  have  been  quite  easy  for  him  to  have  said  that  he  would  let  the 
people  of  a  State  do  just  as  they  pleased,  if  he  desired  to  convey  such  an  idea. 
Why  did  he  not  do  it  ?  He  would  not  answer  my  question  directly,  because 
up  north,  the  Abolition  creed  declares  that  there  shall  be  no  more  Slave  States, 
while  down  south,  in  Adams  County,  in  Coles,  and  in  Sangamon,  he  and  his 
friends  are  afraid  to  advance  that  doctrine.  Therefore,  he  gives  an  evasive  and 
equivocal  answer,  to  be  construed  one  way  in  the  south  and  another,  way  in 
the  north,  which,  when  analyzed,  it  is  apparent  is  not  an  answer  at  all  with 
reference  to  any  territory  now  in  existence. 

Mr.  Lincoln  complains  that  in  my  speech  the  other  day  at  Galesburgh  I 
read  an  extract  from  a  speech  delivered  by  him  at  Chicago,  and  then  another 
from  his  speech  at  Charleston,  and  compared  them,  thus  showing  the  people 
that  he  had  one  set  of  principles  in  one  part  of  the  State,  and  another  in  tlie 
other  part.  And  how  does  he  answer  that  charge  ?  Why,  he  quotes  from 
his  Charleston  speech  as  I  quoted  from  it,  and  then  quotes  another  extract 
from  a  speech  which  he  made  at  another  place,  which  he  says  is  the  same  as 
the  extract  from  his  speech  at  Charleston ;  but  he  does  not  quote  the  extract 
from  his  Chicago  speech,  upon  which  I  convicted  him  of  double-dealing.  I 
quoted  from  his  Chicago  speech  to  prove  that  he  held  one  set  of  principles  up 
north  among  the  Abolitionists,  and  from  his  Charleston  speech  to  prove  that 
he  held  another  set  down  at  Charleston  and  in  southern  Illinois.  In  his 
answer  to  this  charge,  he  ignores  entirely  his  Chicago  speech,  and  merely 
arcrues  that  he  said  the  same  thing  which  he  said  at  Cliarleston  at  another 
place.  If  he  did,  it  follows  that  he  has  twice,  instead  of  once,  held  one 
creed  in  one  part  of  the  State,  and  a  difiereut  creed  in  another  part.  Up  at 
Chicago,  in  the  opening  of  the  campaign,  he  reviewed  my  reception  speech, 
and  undertook  to  answer  my  argument  attacking  his  favorite  doctrine  of  negro 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DQUGLAS.  239 

equality.  I  had  shown  that  it  was  a  falsification  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence to  pretend  that  that  instrument  applied  to  and  included  negroes  in 
the  clause  declaring  that  all  men  were  created  equal.  What  was  Lincoln's 
reply  ?  I  will  read  from  his  Chicago  speech  and  the  one  which  he  did  not 
quote,  and  dare  not  quote,  in  this  part  of  the  State.     He  said :  — 


<( 


I  should  hke  to  know,  if  taking  this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  ■which 
declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle,  and  making  exceptions  to  it,  where 
will  it  stop  1  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a  negro,  why  may  not  another  man 
say  it  does  not  mean  another  man  1  If  that  declaration  is  not  the  truth,  let  us  get 
this  statute  book  in  which  we  find  it,  and  tear  it  out.'' 

There  you  find  that  Mr.  Lincoln  told  the  Abolitionists  of  Chicago  that  if 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  declare  tiiat  the  negro  was  created 
by  the  Almighty  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  that  you  ought  to  take  that 
instrument  and  tear  out  the  clause  which  says  that  all  men  were  created  equal. 
But  let  me  call  your  attention  to  another  part  of  the  same  speech.  You  know 
that  in  his  Charleston  speech,  an  extract  from  which  he  has  read,  he  declared 
that  the  negro  belongs  to  an  inferior  race,  is  physically  inferior  to  the  white 
man,  and  should  always  be  kept  in  an  inferior  position.  I  will  now  read  to 
you  what  he  said  at  Chicago  on  that  point.  In  concluding  his  speech  at  that 
place,  he  remarked  :  — 

"  My  friends,  I  have  detained  you  about  as  long  as  I  desire  to  do,  and  I  have 
only  to  say,  let  us  discard  all  this  quibbling  about  this  man  and  the  otlier  man,  tliis 
race,  and  that  race,  and  the  other  race  being  inferior,  and  therefore  they  must  be 
placed  in  an  inferior  position,  discarding  our  standard  that  we  have  left  us.  Let  us 
discard  all  these  things,  and  unite  as  one  people  throughout  this  land  until  we  shall 
once  more  stand  up  declaring  that  all  men  are  created  equal." 

Thus  you  see  that  when  addressing  the  Chicago  Abolitionists  he  declared 
that  all  distinctions  of  race  must  be  discarded  and  blotted  out,  because  the 
negro  stood  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  white  man ;  that  if  one  man  said 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  mean  a  negro  when  it  declared  all 
men  created  equal,  that  another  man  would  say  that  it  did  not  mean  another 
man ;  and  hence  we  ought  to  discard  all  difference  between  the  negro  race 
and  all  other  races,  and  declare  them  all  created  equal.  Did  old  Giddings, 
when  he  came  down  among  you  four  years  ago,  preach  more  radical  Aboli- 
tionism than  this  ?  Did  Lovejoy,  or  Lloyd  Garrison,  or  Wendell  Phillips,  or 
Fred  Douglass  ever  take  higher  Abolition  grounds  than  that  ?  Lincoln  told 
you  that  I  had  charged  him  with  getting  up  these  personal  attacks  to  conceal 
the  enormity  of  his  principles,  and  then  commenced  talking  about  something 
else,  omitting  to  quote  this  part  of  his  Chicago  speech  which  contained  the 
enormity  of  his  principles  to  which  I  alluded.  He  knew  that  I  alluded  to 
his  negro-equality  doctrines  when  I  spoke  of  the  enormity  of  his  principles, 
yet  he  did  not  find  it  convenient  to  answer  on  that  point.  Having  shown 
you  what  he  said  in  his  (Jhicago  speech  in  reference  to  negroes  being  created 
equal  to  white  men,  and  about  discarding  all  distinctions  between  the  two 
races,  I  will  again  read  to  you  what  he  said  at  Charleston  :  — 

"  I  will  say  then,  that  I  am  not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  bringing  about 
in  any  way,  the  social  and  political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races ;  that  I  am 
not  nor  ever  have  been  in  favor  of  making  voters  of  the  free  negroes,  or  jurors, 
or  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  or  having  them  to  marry  with  white  people.     I 


240  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

will  say  in  addition,  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white  and 
black  races,  which,  I  snppose,  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races  living  together  upon 
terms  of  social  and  political  equality,  and  inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live,  that  while 
they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and  inferior,  that  I 
as  much  as  any  other  man  am  in  favor  of  the  superior  position  being  assigned  to  tlie 
white  man." 

A  voice  :  That's  the  doctrine. 

Mr.  Douglas  :  Yes,  sir,  that  is  good  doctrine ;  but  Mr.  Lincoln  is  afraid  to 
advocate  it  in  the  latitude  of  Chicago,  where  he  hopes  to  get  his  votes.  It  is 
good  doctrine  in  the  anti- Abolition  counties  for  him,  and  his  Chicago  speecli 
is  "ood  doctrine  in  the  Abolition  counties.  I  assert,  on  the  authority  of  these 
two  speeches  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  he  holds  one  set  of  principles  in  the  Aboli- 
tion counties,  and  a  different  and  contradictory  set  in  the  otlier  counties.  I 
do  not  question  that  he  said  at  Ottawa  what  he  quoted ;  but  that  only  convicts 
him  further,  by  proving  that  he  has  twice  contradicted  himself,  instead  of  once. 
Let  me  ask  him  why  he  cannot  avow  his  principles  the  same  in  the  north  as 
iu  the  south,  —  the  same  in  every  county,  —  if  he  has  a  conviction  that  they 
are  just?  But  I  forgot,  —  he  would  not  be  a  Eepublican,  if  his  principles 
would  apply  alike  to  every  part  of  the  country.  The  party  to  which  he 
belongs  is  bounded  and  limited  by  geographical  lines.  With  their  principles, 
they  cannot  even  cross  the  Mississippi  Eiver  on  your  ferry-boats.  They  can- 
not cross  over  the  Ohio  into  Kentucky.  Lincoln  himself  cannot  visit  the  land 
of  his  fathers,  the  scenes  of  his  childhood,  the  graves  of  his  ancestors,  and  carry 
liis  Abolition  principles,  as  he  declared  them  at  Chicago,  with  him. 

This  Eepublican  organization  appeals  to  the  North  against  the  South  :  it 
appeals  to  Northern  passion.  Northern  prejudice,  and  Northern  ambition, 
against  Southern  people,  Southern  States,  and  Southern  institutions,  and  its 
only  hope  of  success  is  by  that  appeal.  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  on  to  justify  himself 
in  making  a  war  upon  slaver}^  upon  the  ground  that  Frank  Blair  and  Gratz 
Brown  did  not  succeed  in  their  warfare  upon  the  institutions  in  Missouri. 
Frank  Blair  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1856,  from  the  State  of  Missouri,  as  a 
Buchanan  Democrat,  and  he  turned  Fremouter  after  the  people  elected  him, 
thus  belonging  to  one  party  before  his  election,  and  another  afterward.  What 
right  then  had  he  to  expect,  after  having  thus  cheated  his  constituency,  that 
they  would  support  him  at  another  election  ?  Mr.  Lincoln  thinks  that  it  is 
Lis  duty  to  preach  a  crusade  in  the  Free  States  against  slavery,  because  it  is  a 
crime,  as  he  believes,  and  ought  to  be  extinguished,  and  because  the  people  of 
the  Slave  States  will  never  abolish  it.  How  is  he  going  to  abolish  it  ?  Down 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  State  he  takes  the  ground  openly  that  he  will  not 
interfere  with  slavery  where  it  exists,  and  says  that  he  is  not  now  and  never 
was  in  favor  of  interfering  with  slavery  where  it  exists  in  the  States.  Well, 
if  he  is  not  in  favor  of  that,  how  does  he  expect  to  bring  slavery  in  a  course 
of  ultimate  extinction  ?  How  can  he  extinguish  it  in  Kentucky,  in  Virginia, 
in  all  the  Slave  States  by  his  policy,  if  he  will  not  pursue  a  policy  which  will 
interfere  with  it  in  tlie  States  where  it  exists  ?  In  his  speech  at  Springfield 
before  the  Abolition,  or  Eepublican,  Convention,  he  declared  his  hostility  to 
any  more  Slave  States  in  this  language :  — 

*'  Under  the  operation  of  that  policy  the  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has 
constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease,  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been 
reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this 
government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.     I  do  not  expect 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  241 

the  Union  to  be  dissolved,  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will 
cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  oppo- 
nents of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it' where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its 
advocates  will  push  it  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  — 
old  as  well  as  new,  Xorth  as  well  as  South." 

Mr.  Lincoln  there  told  his  Abolition  friends  that  this  government  could  not 
endure  permanently,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States  as  our  fathers  made 
it,  and  that  it  must  become  all  free  or  all  slave ;  otherwise,  that  the  govern- 
ment could  not  exist.  How  then  does  Lincoln  propose  to  save  the  Union, 
unless  by  compelling  all  the  States  to  become  free,  so  that  the  house  shall  not 
be  divided  against  itself  ?  He  intends  making  them  all  free  ;  he  will  preserve 
the  Union  in  that  way  ;  and  yet  he  is  not  going  to  interfere  with  slavery  where 
it  now  exists.  How  is  he  going  to  bring  it  about  ?  Whv,  he  will  acritate, 
he  will  induce  the  North  to  agitate,  until  the  South  shall  be  worried  out  and 
forced  to  abolish  slavery.  Let  us  examine  the  policy  by  which  that  is  to  be 
done.  He  first  tells  you  that  he  would  prohibit  slavery  everywhere  in  the 
Territories.  He  would  thus  confine  slavery  within  its  present  limits.  When 
he  thus  gets  it  confined,  and  surrounded,  so  that  it  cannot  spread,  the  natural 
laws  of  increase  will  go  on  until  the  negroes  will  be  so  plenty  that  they  cannot 
live  on  the  soil.  He  will  hem  them  in  until  starvation  seizes  them,  and  by 
starving  them  to  death,  he  will  put  slavery  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc- 
tion. If  he  is  not  going  to  interfere  witli  slavery  in  the  States,  but  intends  to 
interfere  and  prohibit  it  in  the  Territories,  and  thus  smother  slavery  out,  it 
naturally  follows  that  he  can  extinguish  it  only  by  extinguishing  the  negro 
race  ;  for  his  policy  would  drive  them  to  starvation.  This  is  the  humane  and 
Christian  remedy  that  he  proposes  for  the  great  crime  of  slavery  ! 

He  tells  you  that  I  will  not  argue  the  question  whether  slavery  is  right  or 
wrong.  I  tell  you  why  I  will  not  do  it.  I  hold  that,  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  each  State  of  this  Union  has  a  right  to  do  as  it  pleases 
on  the  subject  of  slavery.  In  Illinois  we  have  exercised  that  sovereign  right 
by  prohibiting  slavery  within  our  own  limits.  I  approve  of  that  line  of 
policy.  We  have  performed  our  whole  duty  in  Illinois.  We  have  gone  as 
far  as  we  have  a  right  to  go  under  the  Constitution  of  our  common  country. 
It  is  none  of  our  business  whether  slavery  exists  in  Missouri  or  not.  Missouri 
is  a  sovereign  State  of  this  Union,  and  has  the  same  riglit  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  herself  that  Illinois  has  to  decide  it  for  herself.  Hence  I  do  not 
choose  to  occupy  the  time  allotted  to  me  in  discussing  a  question  that  we  have 
no  right  to  act  upon.  I  thought  that  you  desired  to  hear  us  upon  those  ques- 
tions coming  within  our  constitutional  power  or  action.  Lincoln  will  not 
discuss  these.  What  one  question  has  he  discussed  that  comes  within  the 
power  or  calls  for  the  action  or  interference  of  an  United  States  Senator  ?  He 
is  going  to  discuss  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  when  Congress  cannot  act  upon 
it  either  way.  He  wishes  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
when,  under  the  Constitution,  a  senator  has  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  deci- 
sion of  judicial  tribunals.  He  wants  your  exclusive  attention  to  two  questions 
that  he  has  no  power  to  act  upon  ;  to  two  questions  that  he  could  not  vote 
upon  if  he  was  in  Congress  ;  to  two  questions  that  are  not  practical,  —  in  order 
to  conceal  your  attention  from  other  questions  which  he  might  be  required  to 
vote  upon  should  he  ever  become  a  member  of  Congress.  He  tells  you  that  he 
does  not  like  the  Dred  Scott  decision.     Suppose  he  does  not,  how  is  he  going 

31 


242  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

to  help  himself  ?  He  says  that  he  will  reverse  it.  How  will  he  reverse 
it  ?  I  know  of  but  one  mode  of  reversing  judicial  decisions,  and  that  is  by- 
appealing  from  the  inferior  to  the  superior  court.  But  I  have  never  yet 
learned  how  or  where  an  appeal  could  be  taken  from  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States !  The  Dred  Scott  decision  was  pronounced  by  the  highest 
tribunal  on  earth.  From  that  decision  there  is  no  appeal,  this  side  of  Heaven. 
Yet,  Mr.  Lincoln  says  he  is  going  to  reverse  that  decision.  By  what  tribunal 
will  he  reverse  it  ?  Will  he  appeal  to  a  mob  ?  Does  he  intend  to  appeal  to 
violence,  to  Lynch  law  ?  Will  he  stir  up  strife  and  rebellion  in  the  land,  and 
overthrow  the  court  by  violence  ?  He  does  not  deign  to  tell  you  how  he 
will  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  but  keeps  appealing  each  day  from  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  political  meetings  in  the  country.  He 
wants  me  to  argue  with  you  the  merits  of  each  point  of  that  decision  before 
this  political  meeting.  I  say  to  you,  with  all  due  respect,  that  I  choose  to 
abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  they  are  pronounced.  It  is  not 
for  me  to  inquire,  after  a  decision  is  made,  whether  I  like  it  in  all  the  points  or 
not.  When  I  used  to  practise  law  with  Lincoln,  I  never  knew  him  to  be  beat 
in  a  case  that  he  did  not  get  mad  at  the  judge,  and  talk  about  appealing ;  and 
when  I  got  beat,  I  generally  thought  the  court  was  wrong,  but  I  never  dreamed 
of  going  out  of  the  court-house  and  making. a  stump  speech  to  the  people 
against  the  judge,  merely  because  I  had  found  out  that  I  did  not  know  the 
law  as  well  as  he  did.  Kthe  decision  did  not  suit  me,  I  appealed  until  I  got 
to  the  Supreme  Court ;  and  then  if  that  court,  the  highest  tribunal  in  the 
world,  decided  against  me,  I  was  satisfied,  because  it  is  the  duty  of  every  law- 
abiding  man  to  obey  the  constitutions,  the  laws,  and  the  constituted  author- 
ities. He  who  attempts  to  stir  up  odium  and  rebellion  in  the  country 
against  the  constituted  authorities,  is  stimulating  the  passions  of  men  to  resort 
to  violence  and  to  mobs  instead  of  to  the  law.  Hence,  I  tell  you  that  I  take 
the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  the  law  of  the  land,  and  I  intend  to  obey 
them  as  such. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  I  will  not  answer  his  question  as  to  what  I  would 
do  in  the  event  of  the  court  making  so  ridiculous  a  decision  as  he-  imagines 
they  would  by  deciding  that  the  free  State  of  Hlinois  could  not  prohibit 
slavery  within  her  own  limits.  I  told  him  at  Freeport  why  I  would  not 
answer  such  a  question.  I  told  him  that  there  was  not  a  man  possessing  any 
brains  in  America,  lawyer  or  not,  who  ever  dreamed  that  such  a  thing  could 
be  done.  I  told  him  then,  as  I  do  now,  that  by  all  the  principles  set  forth  in 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  it  is  impossible.  I  told  him  then,  as  I  do  now,  that 
it  is  an  insult  to  men's  understanding,  and  a  gross  calumny  on  the  court,  to 
presume  in  advance  that  it  was  going  to  degrade  itself  so  low  as  to  make  a 
decision  known  to  be  in  direct  violation  of  the  Constitution. 

A  voice :  The  same  thing  was  said  about  the  Dred  Scott  decision  before  it 
passed. 

Mr.  Douglas  :  Perhaps  you  think  that  the  court  did  the  same  thing  in 
reference  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  :  I  have  heard  a  man  talk  that  way  before. 
The  principles  contained  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision  had  been  affirmed  pre- 
viously in  various  other  decisions.  What  court  or  judge  ever  held  that  a  negro 
was  a  citizen  ?  The  State  courts  had  decided  that  question  over  and  over 
again,  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision  on  that  point  only  affirmed  what  every 
court  in  the  land  knew  to  be  the  law. 

But  I  will  not  be  drawn  off  into  an  argument  upon  the  merits  of  the  Dred 
Scott  decision.     It  is  enouoh  for  me  to  know  that  the  Constitution  of  the 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  243 

United  States  created  the  Supreme  Court  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  all  dis- 
puted questions  touching  the  true  construction  of  that  instrument,  and  when 
such  decisions  are  pronounced,  they  are  tlie  law  of  the  land,  binding  on  every 
good  citizen.  Mr.  Lincoln  has  a  very  convenient  mode  of  arguing  upon  the 
subject.  He  holds  that  because  he  is  a  Republican  that  he  is  not  bound  by 
the  decisions  of  the  court,  but  that  I,  being  a  Democrat,  am  so  bound.  It  may 
be  that  Republicans  do  not  hold  themselves  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  country  as  expounded  by  the  courts ;  it  may  be 
an  article  in  the  Republican  creed  that  men  who  do  not  like  a  decision  have 
a  right  to  rebel  against  it :  but  when  Mr.  Lincoln  preaches  that  doctrine,  I 
think  he  will  find  some  honest  Republican  —  some  law-abiding  man  in  that 
party  —  who  will  repudiate  such  a  monstrous  doctrine.  The  decision  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case  is  binding  on  every  American  citizen  alike ;  and  yet  Mr. 
Lincoln  argues  that  the  Republicans  are  not  bound  by  it  because  tliey  are 
opposed  to  it,  whilst  Democrats  are  bound  by  it,  because  we  will  not  resist  it. 
A  Democrat  cannot  resist  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  country  ;  a  Demo- 
crat is  a  law-abiding  man ;  a  Democrat  stands  by  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws,  and  relies  upon  liberty  as  protected  by  law,  and  not  upon  mob  or  political 
violence. 

I  have  never  yet  been  able  to  make  Mr.  Lincoln  understand,  or  can  I  make 
any  man  who  is  determined  to  support  him,  right  or  wrong,  understand  how 
it  is  that  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision  the  people  of  a  Territory,  as  well  as  a 
State,  can  have  slavery  or  not,  just  as  they  please.  I  believe  that  I  can  explain 
that  proposition  to  all  constitution-loving,  law-abiding  men  in  a  way  that  they 
cannot  fail  to  understand  it.  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  his  opinion  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  said  that,  slaves  being  property,  the  owner  of  them  has  a  right  to 
take  them  into  a  Territory  the  same  as  he  would  any  other  property ;  in  other 
words,  that  slave  property,  so  far  as  the  right  to  enter  a  Territory  is  concerned, 
stands  on  the  same  footing  with  other  property.  Suppose  we  grant  that  prop- 
osition. Then  any  man  has  a  right  to  go  to  Kansas  and  take  his  property 
with  him ;  but  when  he  gets  there,  he  must  rely  upon  the  local  law  to  protect 
his  property,  whatever  it  may  be.  In  order  to  illustrate  this,  imagine  that 
three  of  you  conclude  to  go  to  Kansas.  One  takes  $10,000  worth  of  slaves, 
another  $10,000  worth  of  liquors,  and  the  third  $10,000  worth  of  dry  goods. 
When  the  man  who  owns  the  dry  goods  arrives  out  there  and  commences  sell- 
ing them,  he  finds  that  he  is  stopped  and  prohibited  from  selling  until  he  gets 
a  license,  which  will  destroy  all  the  profits  he  can  make  on  his  goods  to  pay 
for.  When  the  man  with  the  liquors  gets  there  and  tries  to  sell,  he  finds  a 
Maine  liquor  law  in  force  which  prevents  him.  Now,  of  what  use  is  his  right 
to  go  there  with  his  property  unless  he  is  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  that 
ricrht  after  he  gets  there  ?  The  man  who  fjoes  there  with  his  slaves  finds  that 
there  is  no  law  to  protect  him  when  he  arrives  there.  He  has  no  remedy  if 
his  slaves  run  away  to  another  country ;  there  is  no  slave  code  or  police  regula- 
tions ;  and  the  absence  of  them  excludes  his  slaves  from  the  Territory  just  as 
effectually  and  as  positively  as  a  constitutional  prohibition  could. 

Such  was  the  understanding  wlien  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  was  pend- 
ing in  Congress.  Read  the  speech  of  Speaker  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  185G,  on  the  Kansas  question,  and  you  will  find 
that  he  takes  the  ground  that  while  the  owner  of  a  slave  has  a  right  to  go 
into  a  Territory  and  carry  his  slaves  with  him,  that  he  cannot  hold  them  one 
day  or  hour  unless  there  is  a  slave  code  to  protect  him.  He  tells  you  that 
slavery  would  not  exist  a  day  in  South  Carolina,  or  any  other  State,  unless 


244  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

there  was  a  friendly  people  and  friendly  legislation.  Eead  the  speeclies  of 
that  giant  in  intellect,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  and  you  will  find 
them  to  the  same  effect.  Eead  the  speeches  of  Sam  Smith,  of  Tennessee,  and 
of  all  Southern  men  and  you  will  find  that  they  all  understood  this  doctrine 
then  as  we  understand  it  now.  Mr.  Lincoln  cannot  be  made  to  understand  it, 
however.  Down  at  Jonesboro,  he  went  on  to  argue  that  if  it  be  the  law  that 
a  man  has  a  right  to  take  his  slaves  into  territory  of  the  United  States  under 
the  Constitution,  that  then  a  member  of  Congress  was  perjured  if  he  did  not 
vote  for  a  slave  code.  I  ask  him  whether  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
is  not  binding  upon  him  as  well  as  on  me  ?  If  so,  and  he  holds  that  he  would 
be  perjured  if  he  did  not  vote  for  a  slave  code  under  it,  I  ask  him  whether,  if 
elected  to  Congress,  he  will  so  vote  ?  I  have  a  right  to  his  answer,  and  I  will 
tell  you  why.  He  put  that  question  to  me  down  in  Egypt,  and  did  it  with  an 
air  of  triumph.  This  was  about  the  form  of  it :  "  In  the  event  that  a  slave- 
holdin"  citizen  of  one  of  the  Territories  should  need  and  demand  a  slave  code 
to  protect  his  slaves,  will  you  vote  for  it  ? "  I  answered  him  that  a  funda- 
mental article  in  the  Democratic  creed,  as  put  forth  in  the  Nebraska  bill  and 
the  Cincinnati  platform,  was  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the 
States  and  Territories,  and  hence  that  I  would  not  vote  in  Congress  for  any 
code  of  laws,  either  for  or  against  slavery,  in  any  Teriitory.  1  will  leave  the 
people  perfectly  free  to  decide  that  question  for  themselves. 

Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Washington  "  Union  "  both  think  this  a  monstrous 
bad  doctrine.  Neither  Mr.  Lincoln  nor  the  Washington  "  Union  "  like  my 
Freeport  speech  on  that  subject.  The  "  L^nion,"  in  a  late  number,  has  been 
reading  me  out  of  the  Democratic  party  because  I  hold  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  have  the  right  to  have  slavery  or  not,  as  they 
please.  It  has  devoted  three  and  a  half  colunms  to  prove  certain  propositions, 
one  of  which  I  will  read.     It  says  :  — 

"We  propose  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas's  action  in  1850  and  1854  was  taken 
with  especial  reference  to  the  announceiuent  of  doctrine  and  programme  which  was 
made  at  Freeport,  The  declaration  at  Freeport  was,  that  '  in  his  opinion  the  people 
can,  by  lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  a  Territory  before  it  comes  in  as  a  State  ; ' 
and  he  declared  that  his  competitor  had  '  heard  him  argue  the  j^ebraska  hill  on  that 
principle  all  over  Illinois  in  1854,  1855,  and  1856,  and  had  no  excuse  to  pretend  to 
have  any  doubt  upon  that  subject.'  " 

The  Washington  "  Union "  there  charges  me  with  the  monstrous  crime 
of  now  proclaiming  on  the  stump  the  same  doctrine  that  I  carried  out  in  1850, 
by  supporting  Clay's  Compromise  Measures.  The  "  Union  "  also  charges  that 
I  am  now  proclaiming  tlie  same  doctrine  that  I  did  in  1854  in  support  of  the 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  It  is  shocked  that  I  should  now  stand  where  I  stood 
in  1850,  when  I  was  supported  by  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  and  the  great  men  of  that 
day,  and  where  I  stood  in  1854  and  in  1856,  when  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected 
President.  It  goes  on  to  prove,  and  succeeds  in  proving,  from  my  speeches 
in  Congress  on  Clay's  Compromise  Measures,  that  I  held  the  same  doctrines 
at  that  time  that  I  do  now,  and  then  proves  that  by  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
bill  I  advanced  the  same  doctrine  that  I  now  advance.     It  remarks  :  — 

"So  much  for  the  course  taken  by  Judge  Douglas  on  the  Compromises  of  1850. 
The  record  shows,  beyond  the  possibility  of  cavil  or  dispute,  that  he  expressly  intended 
in  those  bills  to  give  the  Teri-itorial  Legislatures  power  to  exclude  slavery.  How  stands 
his  record  in  tlie  memorable  session  of  1854,  Avith  reference  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  itself  1     We  shall  not  overhaul  the  votes  that  were  given  on  that  notable  measure, 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  245 

our  space  will  not  afford  it.  We  have  his  own  words,  however,  delivered  in  his 
speech  closing  the  great  debate  on  that  bill  on  the  night  of  ]\Iarch  3,  1854,  to  show 
that  he  meant  to  do  in  1854  preciselj'  what  he  had  meant  to  do  in  1858,  The  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  being  upon  its  passage,  he  said  : " 

It  then  quotes  my  remarks  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  follows :  — 

"  *  The  principle  which  we  propose  to  carry  into  effect  by  this  bill  is  this  :  That 
Congress  shall  neither  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  out  of  the 
same  ;  but  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  regulate  their  domestic  concerns  in  their 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  order  to  carry 
this  principle  into  practical  operation,  it  becomes  necessary  to  remove  whatever  legal 
obstacles  might  be  found  in  the  way  of  its  free  exercise.  It  is  only  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  out  this  great  fundamental  principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill  renders 
the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  inoperative  and  void. 

"  '  Now,  let  me  ask,  will  those  senators  who  have  arraigned  me,  or  any  one  of  them, 
have  the  assurance  to  rise  in  his  place  and  declare  that  this  great  principle  was  never 
thought  of  or  advocated  as  applicable  to  Territorial  bills,  in  1850  ;  that,  from  that 
session  until  the  present,  nobody  ever  thought  of  incorpoiating  this  principle  in  all 
new  Territorial  organizations,  etc.,  etc.  I  will  begin  with  the  Compromises  of  1850. 
Any  senator  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  our  journals  will  find  that  on  the 
25th  of  March  of  that  year  I  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  two  bills, 
including  the  following  measures  :  the  admission  of  California,  a  Territorial  govern- 
ment for  Utah,  a  Territorial  government  for  New  Mexico,  and  the  adjustment  of  the 
Texas  boundary.  These  bills  proposed  to  leave  the  people  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico 
free  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves,  in  the  precise  language  of  the 
Nehraslia  bill  now  under  discussion.  A  few  weeks  afterward  the  committee  of  thir- 
teen took  those  bills  and  put  a  wafer  between  them,  and  reported  them  back  to  the 
Senate  as  one  bill,  with  some  slight  amendments.  One  of  these  amendments  ivas,  that  the 
Territorial  Legislatures  shoidd  not  legislate  %i'pon  the  subject  of  Af7-ican  slavery.  I 
objected  to  this  provision,  upon  the  ground  that  it  subverted  the  great  principle  of  self- 
government,  npon  xvhich  the  bill  had  been  originally  framed  by  the  Territorial  Com- 
viittee.  On  the  first  trial  the  Senate  refused  to  strike  it  out,  but  subsequently  did  so, 
upon  full  debate,  in  order  to  establish  that  principle  as  the  rule  of  action  in  Territorial 
organizations. '  " 

The  "  Union  "  comments  thus  upon  my  speech  on  that  occasion :  — 

"Thus  it  is  seen  that,  in  framing  the  Nebraska-Kansas  bill,  Judge  Douglas  framed 
it  in  the  terms  and  upon  the  model  of  those  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  and  that  in 
the  debate  he  took  pains  expressly  to  revive  the  recollection  of  the  voting  which  had 
taken  place  upon  amendments  affecting  the  powers  of  the  Territorial  Legislatures  over 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  bills  of  1850,  in  order  to  give  the  same  meaning,  force, 
and  effect  to  the  Nebraska-Kansas  bill  on  this  subject  as  had  been  given  to  those  of 
Utah  and  New  Mexico." 

The  "  Union "  proves  the  following  propositions  :  First,  that  I  sustained 
Clay's  Compromise  Measures  on  the  ground  that  they  established  the  principle 
of  self-government  in  the  Territories.  Secondly,  that  I  brought  in  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  bill,  founded  upon  the  same  principles  as  Clay's  Compromise 
Measures  of  1850 ;  and,  thirdly,  that  my  Freeport  speech  is  in  exact  accord- 
ance with  those  principles.  And  what  do  you  think  is  the  imputation  that 
the  "  Union  "  casts  upon  me  for  all  this  ?  It  says  that  my  Freeport  speech  is 
not  Democratic,  and  that  I  was  not  a  Democrat  in  1854  or  in  1850  !  Now  is 
not  that  funny?  Think  that  the  author  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill 
was  not  a  Democrat  when  he  introduced  it !     The  "  Union  "  says  I  was  not  a 


246  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM    LINCOLN 

sound  Democrat  in  1850,  nor  in  1854,  nor  in  1856,  nor  am  T  in  1858,  because 
I  have  always  taken  and  now  occupy  the  ground  that  the  i)eople  of  a  Territory, 
like  those  of  a  State,  have  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery 
shall  or  shall  not  exist  in  a  Territory  !  I  wish  to  cite,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Washington  "  Union  "  and  the  followers  of  that  sheet,  one  authority  on  that 
point,  and  I  hope  the  authority  will  be  deemed  satisfactory  to  that  class  of 
politicians.  I  will  read  from  Mr.  Buchanan's  letter  accepting  the  nomination 
of  the  Democratic  Convention,  for  the  Presidency.  You  know  that  Mr. 
Buchanan,  after  he  was  nominated,  declared  to  the  Keystone  Club,  in  a  public 
speech,  that  he  was  no  longer  James  Buchanan,  but  the  embodiment  of  the 
Democratic  platform.  In  his  letter  to  the  committee  which  informed  him  of 
his  nomination  accepting  it,  he  defined  the  meaning  of  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  and  the  Cincinnati  platform  in  these  words  :  — 

"  The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic  slavery,  derived  as  it  has 
been  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of  the 
majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excitement.  This  legislation  is 
founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and,  in  accordance  with 
them,  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  tlieir  limits." 

Thus  you  see  that  James  Buchanan  accepted  the  nomination  at  Cincinnati, 
on  the  conditions  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  should 
be  left  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  should  or  should  not  exist 
within  their  limits.  I  sustained  James  Buchanan  for  the  Presidency  on  that 
platform  as  adopted  at  Cincinnati,  and  expounded  by  himself.  He  was  elected 
President  on  that  platform,  and  now  we  are  told  by  the  Washington  "  Union  " 
that  no  man  is  a  true  Democrat  who  stands  on  the  platform  on  which  Mr. 
Buchanan  was  nominated,  and  which  he  has  explained  and  expounded  him- 
self. We  are  told  that  a  man  is  not  a  Democrat  who  stands  by  Clay,  Webster, 
and  Cass,  and  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850,  and  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  of  1854.  Whether  a  man  be  a  Democrat  or  not  on  that  plat- 
form, I  intend  to  stand  there  as  long  as  I  have  life.  I  intend  to  cling  firmly 
to  that  great  principle  which  declares  the  right  of  each  State  and  each  Territory 
to  settle  the  question  of  slavery,  and  every  other  domestic  question,  for  them- 
selves. I  hold  that  if  they  want  a  Slave  State,  they  have  a  right  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  make  it  so,  and  if  they  want  a  Free  State, 
it  is  their  right  to  have  it.  But  the  "  Union,"  in  advocating  the  claims  of 
Lincoln  over  me  to  the  Senate,  lays  down  two  unpardonable  heresies  which  it 
says  I  advocate.  The  first  is  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  Territory,  the  same 
as  a  State,  to  decide  for  themselves  the  question  whether  slavery  shall  exist 
within  their  limits,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan  ;  and  the  second  is,  that 
a  Constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  a  Territory  for  its  adoption 
or  rejection  before  their  admission  as  a  State  under  it.  It  so  happens  that 
Mr.  Buchanan  is  pledged  to  both  these  heresies,  for  supporting  which  the 
Washington  "  Union  "  has  read  me  out  of  the  Democratic  church.  In  his 
annual  message  he  said  he  trusted  that  the  example  of  the  Minnesota  case 
would  be  followed  in  all  future  cases,  requiring  a  submission  of  the  Constitu- 
tion ;  and  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  he  said  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  the 
same  as  a  State,  had  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  should 
exist  within  their  limits.  Thus  you  find  that  this  little  corrupt  gang  who 
control  the  "  Union  "  and  wish  to  elect  Lincoln  in  preference  to  me,  —  because, 
as  they  say,  of  these  two  heresies  which   I  support,  —  denounce  President 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  247 

Buclianan  when  they  denounce  me,  if  he  stands  now  by  the  principles  upon 
which  he  was  elected.  Will  they  pretend  that  he  does  not  now  stand  by  the 
principles  on  which  he  was  elected  ?  Do  they  hold  that  he  has  abandoned  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  his  own  letter  accepting 
his  nomination,  all  of  which  declare  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  Territory,  the 
same  as  a  State,  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves  ?  I  will  not 
believe  that  he  has  betrayed  or  intends  to  betray  the  platform  which  elected 
him  ;  but  if  he  does,  I  will  not  follow  him.  I  will  stand  by  that  great  principle, 
no  matter  who  may  desert  it.  I  intend  to  stand  by  it,  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
serving peace  between  the  North  and  the  South,  the  Free  and  the  Slave  States. 
If  each  State  will  only  agree  to  miud  its  own  business  and  let  its  neighbors 
alone,  there  will  be  peace  forever  between  us. 

We  in  Illinois  tried  slavery  when  a  Territory,  and  found  it  was  not  good 
for  us  in  this  climate,  and  with  our  surroundings,  and  hence  we  abolished  it. 
We  then  adopted  a  free  State  constitution,  as  we  had  a  right  to  do.  In  this 
State  we  have  declared  that  a  negro  shall  not  be  a  citizen,  and  we  have  also 
declared  that  he  shall  not  be  a  slave.  We  had  a  right  to  adopt  that  policy. 
Missouri  has  just  as  good  a  right  to  adopt  the  other  policy.  I  am  now  speak- 
ing of  rights  under  the  Constitution,  and  not  of  moral  or  religious  rights.  I 
do  not  discuss  the  morals  of  the  people  of  Missouri,  but  let  them  settle  that 
matter  for  themselves.  I  hold  that  the  people  of  the  slaveholding  States  are 
civilized  men  as  well  as  ourselves,  that  they  bear  consciences  as  well  as  we, 
and  that  they  are  accountable  to  God  and  their  posterity,  and  not  to  us.  It  is 
for  them  to  decide,  therefore,  the  moral  and  religious  right  of  the  slavery  ques- 
tion for  themselves,  within  their  own  limits.  I  assert  that  they  had  as  much 
right  under  the  Constitution  to  adopt  the  system  of  policy  which  they  have  as 
we  had  to  adopt  ours.  So  it  is  with  every  other  State  in  this  Union.  Let 
each  State  stand  firmly  by  that  great  constitutional  right,  let  each  State  mind 
its  own  business  and  let  its  neighbors  alone,  and  there  will  be  no  trouble  on 
this  question.  If  we  will  stand  by  that  principle,  then  Mr.  Lincoln  will  find 
that  this  Eepublic  can  exist  forever,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  as  our 
fathers  made  it  and  the  people  of  each  State  have  decided.  Stand  by  that 
great  principle,  and  we  can  go  on  as  we  have  done,  increasing  in  wealth,  in 
population,  in  power,  and  in  all  the  elements  of  greatness,  until  we  shall  be 
the  admiration  and  terror  of  the  world.  We  can  go  on  and  enlarge  as  our 
population  increase,  require  more  room,  until  we  make  this  continent  one 
ocean-bound  republic.  Under  that  principle  the  United  States  can  perform 
that  great  mission,  that  destiny,  which  Providence  has  marked  out  for  us. 
Under  that  principle  we  can  receive  with  entire  safety  that  stream  of  intelli- 
gence which  is  constantly  flowing  from  the  Old  World  to  the  New,  filling  up  our 
prairies,  clearing  our  wildernesses,  and  building  cities,  towns,  railroads,  and 
other  internal  improvements,  and  thus  make  this  the  asylum  of  the  oppressed 
of  the  whole  earth.  We  have  this  great  mission  to  perform,  and  it  can  only  be 
performed  by  adhering  faithfully  to  that  principle  of  self-government  on  which 
our  institutions  were  all  established.  I  repeat  that  the  principle  is  the  right 
of  each  State,  each  Territory,  to  decide  this  slavery  question  for  itself,  to  have 
slavery  or  not,  as  it  chooses ;  and  it  does  not  become  Mr.  Lincoln,  or  anybody 
else,  to  tell  the  people  of  Kentucky  that  they  have  no  consciences,  that  they 
are  living  in  a  state  of  iniquity,  and  that  they  are  cherishing  an  institution  to 
their  bosoms  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  Better  for  him  to  adopt  the 
doctrine  of  "  Judge  not,  lest  ye  shall  be  judged."  Let  him  perform  his  own 
duty  at  home,  and  he  will  have  a  better  fate  in  the  future.     I  think  there  are 


248  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

objects  of  charity  enough  in  the  Free  States  to  excite  the  sympathies  and 
open  the  pockets  of  all  the  lienevolence  we  have  amongst  ns,  without  going 
abroad  in  search  of  negroes,  of  whose  condition  we  know  nothing.  We  have 
enough  objects  of  charity  at  home,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  take  care  of  our  own 
poor  and  our  own  suffering,  before  we  go  abroad  to  intermeddle  with  other 
people's  business. 

My  friends,  I  am  told  that  my  time  is  within  two  minutes  of  expiring.  I 
have  omitted  many  topics  that  I  would  like  to  have  discussed  before  you  at 
length.  There  were  many  points  touched  by  Mr.  Lincoln  that  I  have  not  been 
able  to  take  up  for  the  want  of  time.  I  have  hurried  over  each  subject  that  I 
have  discussed  as  rapidly  as  possible,  so  as  to  omit  but  few  ;  but  one  hour  and 
a  half  is  not  time  sufficient  for  a  man  to  discuss  at  length  one  half  of  the  great 
questions  which  are  now  dividing  the  public  mind. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  return  to  you  my  grateful  acknowledgments  for 
the  kindness  and  the  courtesy  with  which  you  have  listened  to  me.  It  is 
something  remarkable  that  in  an  audience  as  vast  as  this,  composed  of  men  of 
opposite  politics  and  views,  with  their  passions  highly  excited,  there  should  be 
so  much  courtesy,  kindness,  and  respect  exhibited,  not  only  toward  one  another, 
but  toward  the  speakers ;  and  I  feel  that  it  is  due  to  you  that  I  should  thus 
express  my  gratitude  for  the  kindness  with  which  you  have  treated  me. 


MR.    LINCOLN'S   REJOINDER. 

My  Friends  :  Since  Judge  Douglas  has  said  to  vou  in  his  conclusion  that 
he  had  not  time  in  an  hour  and  a  half  to  answer  all  I  had  said  in  an  hour,  it 
follows  of  course  that  I  will  not  be  able  to  answer  in  half  an  hour  all  that  he 
said  in  an  hour  and  a  half. 

I  wish  to  return  to  Judge  Douglas  my  profound  thanks  for  his  public  annun- 
ciation here  to-da}^  to  be  put  on  record,  that  his  system  of  policy  in  regard 
to  the  institution  of  slavery  coyitemjylates  that  it  shall  last  forever.  We  are 
getting  a  little  nearer  the  true  issue  of  this  controversy,  and  I  am  profoundly 
grateful  for  this  one  sentence.  Judge  Douglas  asks  you,  "  Why  cannot  the 
institution  of  slavery,  or  rather,  why  cannot  the  nation,  part  slave  and  part 
free,  continue  as  our  fatliers  made  it,  forever  ?"  In  the  lirst  place,  I  insist  that 
our  fathers  did  not  make  this  nation  half  slave  and  half  free,  or  part  slave 
and  part  free.  I  insist  that  they  found  the  institution  of  slavery  existing  here. 
They  did  not  make  it  so,  but  they  left  it  so  because  they  knew  of  no  way  to 
get  rid  of  it  at  that  time.  When  Judge  Douglas  undertakes  to  say  that,  as  a 
matter  of  choice,  the  fathers  of  the  government  made  this  nation  part  slave 
and  part  free,  he  assumes  ivhat  is  historically  a  falsehood.  More  than  that : 
when  the  fathers  of  the  government  cut  off  the  source  of  slavery  by  the  abo- 
lition of  the  slave-trade,  and  adopted  a  system  of  restricting  it  from  the  new 
Territories  where  it  had  not  existed,  I  maintain  that  they  placed  it  where  they 
understood,  and  all  sensible  men  understood,  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction ;  and  when  Judge  Douglas  asks  me  why  it  cannot  continue  as  our 
fathers  made  it,  I  ask  him  why  he  and  his  friends  could  not  let  it  remain  as 
our  fathers  made  it  ? 

It  is  precisely  all  I  ask  of  him  in  relation  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  that 
it  shall  be  placed  upon  the  basis  that  our  fathers  placed  it  upon.     Mr.  Brooks, 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  249 

of  South  Carolina,  once  said,  and  truly  said,  that  Avhen  this  government  was 
established,  no  one  expected  the  institution  of  slavery  to  last  until  this  day, 
and  that  the  men  who  formed  this  government  were  wiser  and  better  than 
the  men  of  these  days  ;  but  the  men  of  these  days  had  experience  which  the 
fathers  had  not,  and  that  experience  had  taught  them  the  invention  of  the 
cotton-gin,  and  this  had  made  the  perpetuation  of  the  institution  of  slavery  a 
necessity  in  this  country.  Judge  Douglas  could  not  let  it  stand  upon  the  basis 
which  our  fathers  placed  it,  but  removed  it,  and  iJut  it  upon  the  cotton-gin  basis. 
It  is  a  question,  therefore,  for  him  and  his  friends  to  answer,  why  they  could 
not  let  it  remain  where  the  fathers  of  the  government  originally  placed  it. 

I  hope  nobody  has  understood  me  as  trying  to  sustain  the  doctrine  that  we 
have  a  right  to  quarrel  with  Kentucky,  or  Virginia,  or  any  of  the  Slave  States, 
about  the  institution  of  slavery,  —  thus  giving  the  Judge  an  opportunity 
to  make  himself  eloquent  and  valiant  against  us  in  fighting  for  their  rights. 
I  expressly  declared  in  my  opening  speech  that  I  had  neither  the  inclination  to 
exercise,  nor  the  belief  in  the  existence  of,  the  right  to  interfere  with  the 
States  of  Kentucky  or  Virginia  in  doing  as  they  pleased  with  slavery  or  any 
other  existing  institution.  Then  what  becomes  of  all  his  eloquence  in  behalf 
of  the  rights  of  States,  which  are  assailed  by  no  living  man  ? 

But  I  have  to  hurry  on,  for  I  have  but  a  half  hour.  The  Judge  has 
informed  me,  or  informed  this  audience,  that  the  Washington  "Union"  is 
laboring  for  my  election  to  the  United  States  Senate.  This  is  news  to  me,  — 
not  very  ungrateful  news  either.  [Turning  to  Mr.  W.  H.  Carlin,  who  was  on 
the  stand]  —  I  hope  that  Carlin  will  be  elected  to  the  State  Senate,  and  will 
vote  for  me.  [Mr.  Carlin  shook  his  head.]  Carlin  don't  fall  in,  I  perceive, 
and  I  suppose  he  will  not  do  much  for  me ;  but  I  am  glad  of  all  the  support  I 
can  get,  anywhere,  if  I  can  get  it  without  practising  any  deception  to  obtain 
it.  In  respect  to  this  large  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech  in  which  he 
tries  to  show  that  in  the  controversy  between  himself  and  the  Administration 
party  he  is  in  the  right,  I  do  not  feel  myself  at  all  competent  or  inclined  to 
answer  him,  I  say  to  him,  "  Give  it  to  them,  —  give  it  to  them  just  all  you 
can ; "  and,  on  the  other  hand,  I  say  to  Carlin,  and  Jake  Davis,  and  to  this 
man  Wogley  up  here  in  Hancock,  "Give  it  to  Douglas, — just  pour  it  into 
him." 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  I  wish  to  say  a 
word  or  two.  After  all,  the  Judge  will  not  say  whether,  if  a  decision  is  made 
holding  that  the  people  of  the  States  cannot  exclude  slavery,  he  will  support 
it  or  not.  He  obstinately  refuses  to  say  what  he  will  do  in  that  case.  The 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  obstinately  refused  to  say  what  they  would 
do  on  this  subject.  Before  this  I  reminded  him  that  at  Galesburgh  he  said 
the  judges  had  expressly  declared  the  contrary,  and  you  remember  that  in  my 
opening  speech  I  told  him  I  had  the  book  containing  that  decision  here,  and  I 
would  thank  him  to  lay  his  finger  on  the  place  where  any  such  thing  was  said. 
He  has  occupied  his  hour  and  a  half,  and  he  has  not  ventured  to  try  to  sus- 
tain his  assertion.  He  never  will.  But  he  is  desirous  of  knowing  how  we  are 
going  to  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Judge  Douglas  ought  to  know  how. 
Did  not  he  and  his  political  friends  find  a  way  to  reverse  the  decision  of  that 
same  court  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  National  Bank  ?  Did  n't 
they  find  a  way  to  do  it  so  effectually  that  they  have  reversed  it  as  com- 
pletely as  any  decision  ever  was  reversed,  so  far  as  its  practical  operation  is 
concerned  ?  And  let  me  ask  you,  did  n't  Judge  Douglas  find  a  way  to  reverse 
the  decision  of  our  Supreme  Court  when  it  decided  that  Carlin's  father  —  old 

82 


250  DEBATES  BETWEEN  ABKAHAM  LINCOLN 

Governor  Carlin  —  had  not  the  constitutional  power  to  remove  a  Secretary  of 
State  ?  Did  he  not  appeal  to  the  "  mobs,"  as  he  calls  them  ?  Did  he  not 
make  speeches  in  the  lobby  to  show  how  villanous  tliat  decision  was,  and 
how  it  ought  to  be  overthrown  ?  Did  he  not  succeed,  too,  in  getting  an  Act 
passed  by  the  Legislature  to  have  it  overthrown  ?  And  did  n't  he  himself  sit 
down  on  that  bench  as  one  of  the  five  added  judges,  who  were  to  overslaugh 
the  four  old  ones,  —  getting  his  name  of  "  Judge  "  in  that  way,  and  no  other  ? 
If  there  is  a  villany  in  using  disrespect  or  making  opposition  to  Supreme 
Court  decisions,  I  commend  it  to  Judge  Douglas's  earnest  consideration.  I 
know  of  no  man  in  the  State  of  Illinois  who  ought  to  know  so  well  about  how 
onuch  villany  it  takes  to  oppose  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  as  our  hon- 
orable friend  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 

Judge  Douglas  also  makes  the  declaration  that  I  say  the  Democrats  are 
bound  by  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  while  the  Republicans  are  not.  In  the 
sense  in  which  he  argues,  I  never  said  it ;  but  I  will  tell  you  what  I  have  said 
and  what  I  do  not  hesitate  to  repeat  to-day.  I  have  said  that  as  the  Demo- 
crats believe  that  decision  to  be  correct,  and  that  the  extension  of  slavery  is 
affirmed  in  the  National  Constitution,  they  are  bound  to  support  it  as  such  ; 
and  I  will  tell  you  here  that  General  Jackson  once  said  each  man  was  bound 
to  support  the  Constitution  "  as  he  understood  it."  Now,  Judge  Douglas 
understands  the  Constitution  according  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  he  is 
bound  to  support  it  as  he  understands  it.  I  understand  it  another  way,  and 
therefore  I  am  bound  to  support  it  in  the  way  in  which  I  understand  it.  And 
as  Judge  Douglas  believes  that  decision  to  be  correct,  I  will  remake  that  argu- 
ment if  I  have  time  to  do  so.  Let  me  talk  to  some  gentleman  down  there 
among  you  who  looks  me  in  the  face.  We  will  say  you  are  a  member  of  the 
Territorial  Legislature,  and,  like  Judge  Douglas,  you  believe  that  the  right  to 
take  and  hold  slaves  there  is  a  constitutional  right.  The  first  thing  you  do  is 
to  swear  you  loill  support  the,  Constitution  and  all  rights  guaranteed  therein ; 
that  you  will,  whenever  your  neighbor  needs  your  legislation  to  support  his 
constitutional  rights,  not  withhold  that  legislation.  If  you  withhold  that  neces- 
sary legislation  for  the  support  of  the  Constitution  and  constitutioiml  rights, 
do  you  not  commit  perjury  ?  I  ask  every  sensible  man  if  that  is  not  so  ? 
That  is  undoubtedly  just  so,  say  what  you  please.  Now,  that  is  precisely 
what  Judge  Douglas  says,  that  this  is  a  constitutional  right.  Does  the  Judge 
mean  to  say  that  the  Territorial  Legislature  in  legislating  may,  by  withholding 
necessary  laws,  or  by  passing  unfriendly  laws,  nullify  that  constitutional  right  ? 
Does  he  mean  to  say  that  ?  Does  he  mean  to  ignore  the  proposition  so  long 
and  well  established  in  law,  that  what  you  cannot  do  directly,  you  cannot  do 
indirectly  ?  Does  he  mean  that  ?  The  truth  about  the  matter  is  this :  Judge 
Douglas  has  sung  pteans  to  his  "  Popular  Sovereignty "  doctrine  until  his 
Supreme  Court,  co-operating  with  him,  has  squatted  his  Squatter  Sovereignty 
out.  But  he  will  keep  up  this  species  of  humbuggery  about  Squatter  Sover- 
eignty. He  has  at  last  invented  this  sort  of  do-nothing  Sovereignty,  —  that 
the  people  may  exclude  slavery  by  a  sort  of  "  Sovereignty  "  that  is  exercised 
by  doing  nothing  at  alL  Is  not  that  running  his  Popular  Sovereignty  down 
awfully  ?  Has  it  not  got  down  as  thin  as  the  homceopathic  soup  that  was 
made  by  boiling  the  shadow  of  a  pigeon  that  had  starved  to  death  ?  But  at 
last,  when  it  is  brought  to  the  test  of  close  reasoning,  there  is  not  even  that 
thin  decoction  of  it  left.  It  is  a  presumption  impossible  in  the  domain  of 
thought.  It  is  precisely  no  other  than  the  putting  of  that  most  unphilosophi- 
cal  proposition,  that  two  bodies  can  occupy  the  same  space  at  the  same  time. 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  251 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole  ground,  and  while  it  occupies  it, 
there  is  no  room  even  for  the  shadow  of  a  starved  pigeon  to  occupy  the  same 
ground. 

Judge  Douglas,  in  reply  to  what  I  have  said  about  having  upon  a  previous 
occasion  made  the  speech  at  Ottawa  as  the  one  he  took  an  extract  from,  at 
Charleston,  says  it  only  shows  that  I  practised  the  deception  twice.  Now, 
my  friends,  are  any  of  you  obtuse  enough  to  swallow  that  ?  Judge  Douglas 
had  said  I  had  made  a  speech  at  Charleston  that  I  would  not  make  up  north, 
and  I  turned  around  and  answered  him  by  showing  I  had  made  that  same 
speech  up  north,  —  had  made  it  at  Ottawa ;  made  it  in  his  hearing ;  made  it 
in  the  Abolition  District,  —  in  Lovejoy's  District,  —  in  the  personal  presence 
of  Lovejoy  himself,  —  in  the  same  atmosphere  exactly  in  which  I  had  made 
my  Chicago  speech,  of  which  he  complains  so  much. 

Now,  in  relation  to  my  not  having  said  anything  about  the  quotation  from 
the  Chicago  speech :  he  thinks  that  is  a  terrible  subject  for  me  to  handle. 
Why,  gentlemen,  I  can  show  you  that  the  substance  of  the  Chicago  speech  I 
delivered  two  years  ago  in  "  Egypt,"  as  he  calls  it.  It  was  down  at  Spring- 
field. That  speech  is  here  in  this  book,  and  I  could  turn  to  it  and  read  it  to 
you  but  for  the  lack  of  time.  I  have  not  now  the  time  to  read  it.  ["  Read 
it,  read  it."]  No,  gentlemen,  I  am  obliged  to  use  discretion  in  disposing  most 
advantageously  of  my  brief  time.  The  Judge  has  taken  great  exception  to 
my  adopting  the  heretical  statement  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that 
"  all  men  are  created  equal,"  and  he  has  a  great  deal  to  say  about  negro 
equality.  I  want  to  say  that  in  sometimes  alluding  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  I  have  only  uttered  the  sentiments  that  Henry  Clay  used 
to  hold.  Allow  me  to  occupy  your  time  a  moment  with  what  he  said. 
Mr,  Clay  was  at  one  time  called  upon  in  Indiana,  and  in  a  way  that  I  sup- 
pose was  very  insulting,  to  liberate  his  slaves ;  and  he  made  a  written  reply  to 
that  application,  and  one  portion  of  it  is  in  these  words :  — 

"What  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in  Indiana  to  liberate  the  slaves 
luider  my  care  in  Kentucky  1  It  is  a  general  declaration  in  the  act  announcing  to 
the  world  the  independence  of  the  thirteen  American  colonies,  tlmt  '  men  are  created 
equal. ^  Now,  as  an  absti-act  principle,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  that  declara- 
tion, and  it  is  desirable  in  the  original  constr-uction  of  society,  and  in  organized  socie- 
ties, to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental  principle." 

When  I  sometimes,  in  relation  to  the  organization  of  new  societies  in  new 
countries,  where  the  soil  is  clean  and  clear,  insisted  that  we  should  keep  that 
principle  in  view,  Judge  Douglas  will  have  it  that  I  want  a  negro  wife.  He 
never  can  be  brouglit  to  understand  that  there  is  any  middle  ground  on  this 
subject.  I  have  lived  until  my  fiftieth  year,  and  have  never  had  a  negro 
woman  either  for  a  slave  or  a  wife,  and  I  think  I  can  live  fifty  centuries,  for 
that  matter,  without  having  had  one  for  either.  I  maintain  that  you  may 
take  Judge  Douglas's  quotations  from  my  Chicago  speech,  and  from  my 
Charleston  speech,  and  the  Galesburgh  speech,  —  in  his  speech  of  to-day, — 
and  compare  them  over,  and  I  am  willing  to  trust  them  with  you  upon  his 
proposition  that  they  show  rascality  or  double-dealing.     I  deny  that  they  do. 

The  Judge  does  not  seem  at  all  disposed  to  have  peace,  but  I  find  he  is 
disposed  to  have  a  personal  warfare  with  me.  He  says  that  my  oath  would 
not  be  taken  against  the  bare  word  of  Charles  H.  Lanphier  or  Thomas  L. 
Harris.  Well,  that  is  altogether  a  matter  of  opinion.  It  is  certainly  not  for 
me  to  vaunt  my  word  against  oaths  of  these  gentlemen,  but  I  will  tell  Judge 


252  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Douglas  again  the  facts  upon  which  I  "dared"  to  say  tljey  proved  a  forgery. 
I  pointed  out  at  Galesburgh  that  tlie  publication  of  these  resolutions  in  the 
Illinois  "  State  Eegister "  could  not  have  been  the  result  of  accident,  as  the 
proceedings  of  that  meeting  bore  unmistakable  evidence  of  being  done  by  a 
man  who  kncio  it  was  a  forgery ;  that  it  was  a  publication  partly  taken  from 
the  real  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  and  partly  from  the  proceedings  of  a 
Convention  at  another  place,  —  which  showed  that  he  had  the  real  proceedings 
before  him,  and  taking  one  part  of  the  resolutions,  he  threw  out  another  part, 
and  substituted  false  and  fraudulent  ones  in  their  stead.     I  pointed  that  out 
to  him,  and  also  that  his  friend  Lanphier,  who  was  editor  of  the  "  Eegister  " 
at  that  time  and  now  is,  must  have  known  how  it  was  done.     Now,  whether 
he  did  it,  or  got  some  friend  to  do  it  for  him,  I  could  not  tell,  but  he  certainly 
knew  all  about  it.     I  pointed  out  to  Judge  Douglas  that  in  his  Freeport 
speech  he  had  promised  to  investigate  that  matter.     Does  he  now  say  he  did 
not  make  that  promise  ?     I  have  a  right  to  ask  ivhij  he  did  not  kee^p  it .?     I  call 
upon  him  to  tell  here  to-day  why  he  did  not  keep  that  promise  ?     That  fraud 
has  been  traced  up  so  that  it  lies  between  him,  Harris,  and  Lanphier.     There 
is  little  room  for  escape  for  Lanphier.     Lanphier  is  doing  the  Judge  good  ser- 
vice, and  Douglas  desires   his  word  to  be   taken  for  the  truth.     He  desires 
Lanphier  to  be  taken  as  authority  in  what  he  states  in  his  newspaper.     He 
desires  Harris  to  be  taken  as  a  man  of  vast  credibility ;  and  when  this  thing 
lies  among    them,  they  will   not   press  it  to  show  where  the    guilt  really 
belongs.     Now,  as  he  lias  said  that  he  would  investigate  it,  and  implied  that 
he  would  tell  us  the  result  of  his  investigation,  I  demand  of  him  to  tell  why 
he  did  not  investigate  it,  if  he  did  not ;  and  if  he  did,  why  he  wont  tell  the 
residt.     I  call  upon  him  for  that. 

This  is  the  third  time  that  Judge  Douglas  has  assumed  that  he  learned 
about  these  resolutions  by  Harris's  attempting  to  use  them  against  Norton  on 
the  floor  of  Congress.  I  tell  Judge  Douglas  the  public  records  of  the  country 
show  that  he  himself  attempted  it  upon  Trumbull  a  month  before  Harris  tried 
them  on  Norton  ;  that  Harris  had  the  opportunity  of  learning  it  from  hi7n, 
rather  than  he  from  Harris.  I  now  ask  his  attention  to  that  part  of  the  record 
on  the  case.  My  friends,  I  am  not  disposed  to  detain  you  longer  in  regard  to 
that  matter. 

I  am  told  that  I  still  have  five  minutes  left.  There  is  another  matter  I 
wish  to  call  attention  to.  He  says,  when  he  discovered  there  was  a  mistake  in 
that  case,  he  came  forward  magnanimously,  without  my  calling  his  attention 
to  it,  and  explained  it.  I  will  tell  you  how  he  became  so  magnanimous. 
When  the  newspapers  of  our  side  had  discovered  and  published  it,  and  put  it 
beyond  his  power  to  deny  it,  then  he  came  forward  and  made  a  virtue  of 
necessity  by  acknowledging  it.  Now  he  argues  that  all  the  point  there  was 
in  those  resolutions,  although  never  passed  at  Springfield,  is  retained  by  their 
being  passed  at  other  localities.  Is  that  true  ?  He  said  I  had  a  hand  in  pass- 
ing them,  in  his  opening  speech,  —  that  I  was  in  the  Convention  and  helped 
to  pass  them.  Do  the  resolutions  touch  me  at  all  ?  It  strikes  me  there  is 
some  difference  between  holding  a  man  responsible  for  an  act  which  he  has 
7wt  done,  and  holding  him  responsible  for  an  act  that  he  has  done.  You  will 
judge  whether  there  is  any  difference  in  the  "  spots."  And  he  has  taken  credit 
for  great  magnanimity  in  coming  forward  and  acknowledging  what  is  proved 
on  him  beyond  even  the  capacity  of  Judge  Douglas  to  deny ;  and  he  has  more 
capacity  in  that  way  than  any  other  living  man. 

Then  he  wants  to  know  why  I  won't  withdraw  the  charge  in  regard  to  a 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  253 

conspiracy  to  make  slavery  national,  as  he  has  withdrawn  the  one  he  made. 
May  it  please  his  worship,  I  will  withdraw  it  ivhen  it  is  proven  false  on  me  as 
that  was  proven  false  on  him.  I  will  add  a  little  more  than  that.  I  will 
withdraw  it  whenever  a  reasonable  man  shall  be  brought  to  believe  that  the 
charo'e  is  not  true.  I  have  asked  Judge  Douglas's  attention  to  certain  matters 
of  fact  tending  to  prove  the  charge  of  a  conspiracy  to  nationalize  slavery,  and 
he  says  he  convinces  me  that  this  is  all  untrue  because  Buchanan  was  not  in 
the  country  at  that  time,  and  because  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  not  then  got 
into  the  Supreme  Court;  and  he  says  that  I  say  t\\Q  Democratic  owners  of 
Dred  Scott  got  up  the  case,  I  never  did  say  that.  I  defy  Judge  Douglas  to 
show  that  I  ever  said  so,  for  I  never  uttered  it.  [One  of  Mr.  Douglas's 
reporters  gesticulated  affirmatively  at  Mr.  Lincoln.]  I  don't  care  if  your 
hireling  does  say  I  did,  I  tell  you  myself  that  /  never  said  the  "  Democratic  " 
owners  of  Dred  Scott  got  up  the  case.  I  have  never  pretended  to  know  whether 
Dred  Scott's  owners  were  Democrats,  or  Abolitionists,  or  Free-soilers  or  Border 
Ruffians.  I  have  said  that  there  is  evidence  about  the  case  tending  to  show 
that  it  was  a  made  up  case,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  that  decision.  I  have 
said  that  that  evidence  was  very  strong  in  the  fact  that  when  Dred  Scott  was 
declared  to  be  a  slave,  the  owner  of  him  made  him  free,  showing  that  he  had 
had  the  case  tried  and  the  question  settled  for  such  use  as  could  be  made  of 
that  decision ;  he  cared  nothing  about  the  property  thus  declared  to  be  his  by 
that  decision.     But  my  time  is  out,  and  I  can  say  no  more. 


THE    LAST   JOINT   DEBATE,  AT   ALTON, 

October  15,  1858. 

SENATOR   DOUGLAS'S   SPEECH. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  It  is  now  nearly  four  months  since  tlie  canvass 
between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  commenced.  On  the  IGth  of  June  tlie  Re- 
publican Convention  assembled  at  Springfield  and  nominated  Mr.  Lincoln  as 
their  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  and  he,  on  that  occasion,  delivered 
a  speech  in  which  he  laid  down  what  he  understood  to  be  the  Republican 
creed,  and  the  platform  on  which  he  proposed  to  stand  during  the  contest. 
The  principal  points  in  that  speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  were :  First,  that  this 
government  could  not  endure  permanently  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States, 
as  our  fathers  made  it ;  that  they  must  all  become  free  or  all  become  slave ; 
all  become  one  thing,  or  all  become  the  other,  —  otherwise  this  Union  could 
not  continue  to  exist.  I  give  you  his  opinions  almost  in  the  identical  lan- 
guage he  used.  His  second  proposition  was  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  urging  as  an 
especial  reason  for  his  opposition  to  that  decision  that  it  deprived  the  negroes 
of  the  rights  and  benefits  of  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  which  guarantees  to  the  citizens  of  each  State  all  tlie  rights,  privileges, 
and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  several  States.  On  the  10th  of  July 
I  returned  home,  and  delivered  a  speech  to  the  people  of  Chicago,  in  which  I 
announced  it  to  be  my  purpose  to  appeal  to  the  people  of  Illinois  to  sustain 
the  course  I  had  pursued  in  Congress.     In  that  speech  I  joined  issue  with 


254  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Mr.  Lincoln  on  tlie  points  which  he  liad  presented.  Thus  tliere  was  an  issue 
clear  and  distinct  made  up  between  us  on  these  two  propositions  laid  down 
in  the  speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln  at  Springfield,  and  controverted  by  me  in  my  reply 
to  him  at  Chicago.  On  the  next  day,  the  11th  of  July,  Mr.  Lincoln  replied 
to  me  at  Chicago,  explaining  at  some  length  and  reaffirming  the  positions 
which  he  had  taken  in  his  Springfield  speech.  In  that  Chicago  speech  he 
even  went  further  than  he  had  before,  and  uttered  sentiments  in  regard  to  the 
negro  being  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  He  adopted  in  support  of 
this  position  the  argument  which  Lovejoy  and  Codding  and  other  Abolition 
lecturers  had  made  familiar  in  the  northern  and  central  portions  of  the  State ; 
to  wit,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  having  declared  all  men  free  and 
equal,  by  divine  law,  also  that  negro  equality  was  an  inalienable  right,  of 
which  they  could  not  be  deprived.  He  insisted,  in  that  speech,  that  the 
L^eclaration  of  Independence  included  the  negro  in  the  clause  asserting  that 
all  men  were  created  equal,  and  went  so  far  as  to  say  tliat  if  one  man  was 
allowed  to  take  the  position  that  it  did  not  include  the  negro,  others  might 
take  the  position  that  it  did  not  include  other  men.  He  said  that  all  these 
distinctions  between  this  man  and  that  man,  this  race  and  the  other  race, 
must  be  discarded,  and  we  must  all  stand  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
declaring  that  all  men  were  created  equal. 

The  issue  thus  being  made  up  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  on  three 
points,  we  went  before  the  people  of  the  State.  During  the  following  seven 
weeks,  between  the  Chicago  speeches  and  our  first  meeting  at  Ottawa,  he  and  I 
addressed  large  assemblages  of  the  people  in  many  of  the  central  counties.  In 
my  speeches  I  confined  myself  closely  to  those  three  positions  which  he  had  taken, 
controverting  his  proposition  that  this  Union  could  not  exist  as  our  fathers 
made  it,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  controverting  his  proposition  of 
a  crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and 
controverting  his  proposition  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  included 
and  meant  the  negroes  as  well  as  the  white  men,  when  it  declared  all  men  to 
be  created  equal.  I  supposed  at  that  time  that  these  propositions  constituted 
a  distinct  issue  between  us,  and  that  the  opposite  positions  we  had  taken  upon 
them  we  would  be  willing  to  be  held  to  in  every  part  of  the  State.  I  never 
intended  to  waver  one  hair's  breadth  from  that  issue  either  in  the  north  or 
the  south,  or  wherever  I  should  address  the  people  of  Illinois.  I  hold  that 
when  the  time  arrives  that  I  cannot  proclaim  my  political  creed  in  the  same 
terms,  not  only  in  the  northern,  but  the  southern  part  of  Illinois,  not  only  in 
the  Northern,  but  the  Southern  States,  and  wherever  the  American  flag  waves 
over  American  soil,  that  then  there  must  be  something  wrong  in  that  creed  ; 
so  long  as  we  live  under  a  common  Constitution,  so  long  as  we  live  in  a  con- 
federacy  of  sovereign  and  equal  States,  joined  together  as  one  for  certain  pur- 
poses, that  any  political  creed  is  radically  wrong  wliich  cannot  be  proclaimed 
in  every  State  and  every  section  of  that  Union,  alike.  I  took  up  Mr.  Lincoln's 
three  propositions  in  my  several  speeches,  analyzed  them,  and  pointed  out 
what  I  believed  to  be  the  radical  errors  contained  in  them.  First,  in  regard 
to  his  doctrine  that  this  government  was  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  which 
says  that  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  I  repudiated  it  as  a  slan- 
der upon  the  immortal  framers  of  our  Constitution.  I  then  said,  I  have  often 
repeated,  and  now  again  assert,  tliat  in  my  opinion  our  government  can  endure 
forever,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States  as  our  fathers  made  it,  —  each 
State  having  the  right  to  prohibit,  abolish,  or  sustain  slavery,  just  as  it  pleases. 
This  government  was  made  upon  tlie  great  basis  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  255 

States,  the  ris^ht  of  each  State  to  regulate  its  own  domestic  institutions  to  suit 
itself;  and  that  right  was  conferred  with  the  understanding  and  expectation 
that  inasmuch  as  each  locality  had  separate  interests,  each  locality  must  have 
different  and  distinct  local  and  domestic  institutions,  corresponding  to  its  wants 
and  interests.  Our  fathers  knew  when  they  made  the  government  that  the 
laws  and  institutions  which  were  well  adapted  to  the  Green  Mountains  of 
Vermont  were  unsuited  to  the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina.  They  knew 
then,  as  well  as  we  know  now,  that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  would  be 
w^ell  adapted  to  the  beautiful  prairies  of  Illinois  would  not  be  suited  to  the 
mining  regions  of  California.  They  knew  that  in  a  Eepublic  as  broad  as  this, 
having  such  a  variety  of  soil,  climate,  and  interest,  there  must  necessarily  be 
a  corresponding  variety  of  local  laws,  —  the  policy  and  institutions  of  each 
State  adapted  to  its  condition  and  wants.  For  this  reason  this  Union  was 
established  on  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  question  of 
slavery,  and  every  other  question  ;  and  the  various  States  were  not  allowed  to 
complain  of,  much  less  interfere  with,  the  policy  of  their  neighbors. 

Suppose  the  doctrine  advocated  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Abolitionists  of 
this  day  had  prevailed  when  the  Constitution  was  made,  what  would  have 
been  the  result  ?  Imagine  for  a  moment  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  a  member 
of  the  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
when  its  members  were  about  to  sign  that  wonderful  document,  he  had  arisen 
in  that  Convention  as  he  did  at  Springfield  this  summer,  and,  addressing  him- 
self to  the  President,  had  said,  "  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand ; 
this  government,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States  cannot  endure,  they  must 
all  be  free  or  all  be  slave ;  they  must  all  be  one  thing,  or  all  the  other,  — 
otherwise,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  cannot  continue  to  exist ; " 
—  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  had  convinced  that  body  of  sages  that  that  doctrine 
was  sound,  what  would  have  been  the  result  ?  Eemember  that  the  Union 
was  then  composed  of  thirteen  States,  twelve  of  which  were  slaveholding, 
and  one  free.  Do  you  think  that  the  one  Free  State  would  have  outvoted 
the  twelve  slaveholding  States,  and  thus  have  secured  the  abolition  of  slavery  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  would  not  the  twelve  slaveholding  States  have  outvoted 
the  one  free  State,  and  thus  have  fastened  slavery,  by  a  constitutional  pro- 
vision, on  every  foot  of  the  American  Eepublic  forever  ?  You  see  that  if  this 
Abolition  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln  had  prevailed  when  the  government  was 
made,  it  would  have  established  slavery  as  a  permanent  institution  in  all  the 
States,  whether  they  wanted  it  or  not ;  and  the  question  for  us  to  determine 
in  Illinois  now,  as  one  of  the  Free  States,  is  whether  or  not  we  are  willing, 
having  become  the  majority  section,  to  enforce  a  doctrine  on  the  minority 
which  we  would  have  resisted  with  our  heart's  blood  had  it  been  attempted 
on  us  when  we  were  in  a  minority.  How  has  the  South  lost  her  power  as 
the  majority  section  in  this  Union,  and  how  have  the  Free  States  gained  it, 
except  under  the  operation  of  that  principle  which  declares  the  right  of  the 
people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way  ?  It  was  under  that  principle  that  slavery  was 
abolished  in  New  Hampshire,  Ehode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  ;  it  was  under  that  principle  that  one  half  of  the 
slaveholding  States  became  free  :  it  was  under  that  principle  that  the  number 
of  Free  States  increased  until,  from  being  one  out  of  twelve  States,  we  have 
grown  to  be  the  majority  of  States  of  the  whole  Union,  with  the  power  to 
control  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  and  Senate,  and  the  power,  consequently, 
to  elect  a  President  by  Northern  votes,  without  the  aid  of  a  Southern  State. 


256  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Having  obtained  this  power  under  the  operation  of  that  great  principle,  are 
you  now  prepared  to  abandon  the  principle  and  declare  that  merely  because 
we  have  the  power  you  will  wage  a  war  against  the  Southern  States  and  their 
institutions  until  you  force  them  to  abolish  slavery  everywhere. 

After  having  pressed  these  arguments  home  on  Mr.  Lincoln  for  seven  weeks, 
publishing  a  number  of  my  speeches,  we  met  at  Ottawa  in  joint  discussion, 
and  he  then  began  to  crawfish  a  little,  and  let  himself  down.  I  there  pro- 
pounded certain  questions  to  him.  Amongst  others,  I  asked  him  whether  he 
would  vote  for  the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States,  in  the  event  the  people 
wanted  them.  He  would  not  answer.  I  then  told  him  that  if  he  did  not 
answer  the  question  there,  T  would  renew  it  at  Freeport,  and  would  then  trot 
him  down  into  Egypt  and  again  put  it  to  him.  Well,  at  Freeport,  knowing 
that  the  next  joint  discussion  took  place  in  Egypt,  and  being  in  dread  of  it,  he 
did  answer  my  question  in  regard  to  no  more  Slave  States  in  a  mode  which  he 
hoped  would  be  satisfactory  to  me,  and  accomplish  the  object  he  had  in  view. 
I  will  show  you  what  his  answer  was.  After  saying  that  he  was  not  pledged  to 
the  Eepublican  doctrine  of  "  no  more  Slave  States,"  he  declared  :  — 

•'  I  state  to  you  freely,  frankly,  that  I  should  be  exceedingly  sorry  to  ever  be  put 
in  the  position  of  having  to  pass  upon  that  question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad 
to  know  that  there  never  would  be  another  Slave  State  admitted  into  this  Union." 

Here  permit  me  to  remark,  that  I  do  not  think  the  people  will  ever  force 
him  into  a  position  against  his  will.     He  went  on  to  say  :  — 

"  But  I  must  add,  in  regard  to  this,  that  if  slavery  shall  be  kej^t  out  of  the  Terri- 
tory during  the  Territorial  existence  of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the  people 
should,  having  a  fair  chance  and  a  clear  field,  when  they  come  to  adopt  a  constitu- 
tiou,  if  they  should  do  the  extraordinary  thing  of  adopting  a  slave  constitution  un- 
influenced by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative, 
if  we  own  the  countrj',  but  we  must  admit  it  into  the  Union." 

That  answer  Mr,  Liiicoln  supposed  would  satisfy  the  old  line  Whigs,  com- 
posed of  Kentuckians  and  Virginians,  down  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State. 
Now,  what  does  it  amount  to  ?  I  desired  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  to 
allow  Kansas  to  come  into  the  Union  with  slavery  or  not,  as  her  people  desired. 
He  would  not  answer,  but  in  a  roundabout  way  said  that  if  slavery  should  be 
kept  out  of  a  Territory  during  the  whole  of  its  Territorial  existence,  and  then 
the  people,  when  they  adopted  a  State  Constitution,  asked  admission  as  a  Slave 
State,  he  supposed  he  would  have  to  let  the  State  come  in.  The  case  I  put  to 
him  was  an  entirely  different  one.  I  desired  to  know  whether  he  would  vote 
to  admit  a  State  if  Congress  had  not  prohibited  slavery  in  it  during  its  Terri- 
torial existence,  as  Congress  never  pretended  to  do  under  Clay's  Compromise 
measures  of  1850.  He  would  not  answer,  and  I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  get 
an  answer  from  him.  I  have  asked  him  whether  he  would  vote  to  admit 
Nebraska  if  her  people  asked  to  come  in  as  a  State  with  a  constitution  recogniz- 
ing slavery,  and  he  refused  to  answer.  I  have  put  the  question  to  him  with 
reference  to  New  Mexico,  and  he  has  not  uttered  a  word  in  answer.  I  have 
enumerated  the  Territories,  one  after  another,  putting  the  same  question  to  him 
with  reference  to  each,  and  he  has  not  said,  and  will  not  say,  whether,  if  elected 
to  Congress,  he  will  vote  to  admit  any  Territory  now  in  existence  with  such  a 
constitution  as  her  people  may  adopt.  He  invents  a  case  which  does  not  exist, 
and  cannot  exist  under  this  government,  and  answers  it ;  but  he  will  not  answer 
the  question  I  put  to  him  in  connection  with  any  of  the  Territories  now  in 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  257 

existence.  The  contract  we  entered  into  with  Texas  when  she  entered  tlie 
Union  obliges  us  to  allow  four  States  to  be  formed  out  of  the  old  State,  and 
admitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  respective  inhabitants  of  each  may 
determine.  I  have  asked  Mr.  Lincoln  three  times  in  our  joint  discussions 
whether  he  would  vote  to  redeem  that  pledge,  and  he  has  never  yet  answered. 
He  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject.  He  would  rather  answer  as  to  a 
state  of  the  case  which  will  never  arise  than  commit  himself  by  telling  what  he 
would  do  in  a  case  which  would  come  up  for  his  action  soon  after  his  election 
to  Congress.  Why  can  he  not  say  whether  he  is  willing  to  allow  the  people  of 
each  State  to  have  slavery  or  not  as  they  please,  and  to  come  into  the  Union, 
when  they  have  the  requisite  population,  as  a  Slave  or  a  Free  State  as  they 
decide  ?  I  have  no  trouble  in  answering  the  question.  I  have  said  every- 
where, and  now  repeat  it  to  you,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  Slave  State 
they  have  a  right,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  form  such  a 
State,  and  I  will  let  them  come  into  the  Union  with  slavery  or  without,  as  they 
determine.  If  the  people  of  any  other  Territory  desire  slavery,  let  them  liave 
it.  If  they  do  not  want  it,  let  them  prohibit  it.  It  is  their  business,  not  mine. 
It  is  none  of  our  business  in  Illinois  whether  Kansas  is  a  Free  State  or  a  Slave 
State.  It  is  none  of  your  business  in  Missouri  whether  Kansas  shall  adopt 
slavery  or  reject  it.  It  is  the  business  of  her  people,  and  none  of  yours.  The 
people  of  Kansas  have  as  much  right  to  decide  that  question  for  themselves  as 
you  have  in  Missouri  to  decide  it  for  yourselves,  or  we  in  Illinois  to  decide  it 
for  ourselves. 

And  here  I  may  repeat  what  I  have  said  in  every  speech  I  have  made  in 
Illinois,  that  I  fought  the  Lecompton  Constitution  to  its  death,  not  because  of 
the  slavery  clause  in  it,  but  because  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people 
of  Kansas.  I  said  then  in  Congress,  and  I  say  now,  that  if  the  people  of 
Kansas  want  a  Slave  State,  they  have  a  right  to  have  it.  If  they  wanted  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  they  had  a  right  to  have  it.  I  was  opposed  to  that 
constitution  because  I  did  not  believe  that  it  was  the  act  and  deed  of  the 
people,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  act  of  a  small,  pitiful  minority  acting  in  the 
name  of  the  majority.  When  at  last  it  was  determined  to  send  that  constitu- 
tion back  to  the  people,  and,  accordingly,  in  August  last,  the  question  of 
admission  under  it  was  submitted  to  a  popular  vote,  the  citizens  rejected  it  by 
nearly  ten  to  one,  thus  showing  conclusively  that  I  was  right  when  I  said  that 
the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
and  did  not  embody  their  will. 

I  hold  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  under  our  system  of  government, 
which  has  the  right  to  force  a  constitution  upon  an  unwilling  people.  Suppose 
that  there  had  been  a  majority  of  ten  to  one  in  favor  of  slavery  in  Kansas,  and 
suppose  there  had  been  an  Abolition  President  and  an  Abolition  Administra- 
tion, and  by  some  means  the  Abolitionists  succeeded  in  forcing  an  Abolition 
Constitution  on  those  slaveholding  people,  would  the  people  of  the  South  have 
submitted  to  that  act  for  one  instant  ?  Well,  if  you  of  the  South  would  not 
have  submitted  to  it  a  day,  how  can  you,  as  fair,  honorable,  and  honest  men, 
insist  on  putting  a  slave  constitution  on  a  people  who  desire  a  Free  State  ? 
Your  safety  and  ours  depend  upon  both  of  us  acting  in  good  faith,  and  living 
up  to  that  great  principle  which  asserts  the  right  of  every  people  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States. 

Most  of  the  men  who  denounced  my  course  on  the  Lecompton  question 
objected  to  it,  not  because  I  was  not  right,  but  because  they  thought  it  expedient 

83 


258  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

at  timt  time,  for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  party  together,  to  do  wrong.  I  never 
knew  the  Democratic  party  to  violate  any  one  of  its  principles,  ont  of  policy 
or  expediency,  that  it  did  not  pay  the  debt  with  sorrow.  There  is  no  safety  or 
success  for  our  party  unless  we  always  do  right,  and  trust  the  consequences  to 
God  and  the  people.  I  chose  not  to  depart  from  principle  for  the  sake  of 
expediency  on  the  Lecompton  question,  and  I  never  intend  to  do  it  on  that  or 
any  other  question. 

But  I  am  told  that  I  would  have  been  all  right  if  I  had  only  voted  for  the 
English  bill  after  Lecompton  was  killed.  You  know  a  general  pardon  was 
granted  to  all  political  offenders  on  the  Lecompton  question,  provided  they 
would  only  vote  for  the  English  bill.  I  did  not  accept  the  benefits  of  that 
pardon,  for  the  reason  that  I  had  been  right  in  the  course  I  had  pursued,  and 
hence  did  not  require  any  forgiveness.  Let  us  see  how  the  result  has  been 
worked  out.  English  brought  in  his  bill  referring  the  Lecompton  Constitution 
back  to  the  people,  with  the  provision  that  if  it  was  rejected,  Kansas  should 
be  kept  out  of  the  Union  until  she  had  the  full  ratio  of  population  required 
for  a  member  of  Congress,  —  thus  in  effect  declaring  that  if  the  people  of 
Kansas  would  only  consent  to  come  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  Con- 
stitution, and  have  a  Slave  State  when  they  did  not  want  it,  they  should  be 
admitted  with  a  population  of  35,000  ;  but  that  if  they  were  so  obstinate  as 
to  insist  upon  having  just  such  a  constitution  as  they  thought  best,  and  to 
desire  admission  as  a  Free  State,  then  they  should  be  kept  out  until  they  had 
93,420  inhabitants.  I  then  said,  and  I  now  repeat  to  you,  that  whenever  Kansas 
has  people  enough  for  a  Slave  State  she  has  people  enough  for  a  Free  State. 
T  was  and  am  willing  to  adopt  the  rule  that  no  State  shall  ever  come  into  the 
Union  until  she  has  the  full  ratio  of  population  for  a  member  of  Congress, 
provided  that  rule  is  made  uniform.  I  made  that  proposition  in  the  Senate 
last  winter,  but  a  majority  of  the  senators  would  not  agree  to  it ;  and  I  then 
said  to  them.  If  you  will  not  adopt  the  general  rule,  I  will  not  consent  to  make 
an  exception  of  Kansas. 

I  hold  that  it  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  govern- 
ment to  throw  the  weight  of  Federal  power  into  the  scale,  either  in  favor  of 
the  Free  or  the  Slave  States.  Equality  an:iong  all  the  States  of  this  Union  is 
a  fundamental  principle  in  our  political  system.  We  have  no  more  right  to 
throw  the  weight  of  the  Federal  Government  into  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  slave- 
holding  than  the  Free  States,  and  last  of  all  should  our  friends  in  the  South 
consent  for  a  moment  that  Congress  should  withhold  its  powers  either  way 
when  they  know  that  there  is  a  majority  against  them  in  both  Houses  of 
Congress. 

Fellow-citizens,  how  have  the  supporters  of  the  English  bill  stood  up  to 
their  pledges  not  to  admit  Kansas  until  she  obtained  a  population  of  93,420  in 
the  event  she  rejected  the  Lecompton  Constitution  ?  How  ?  The  newspapers 
inform  us  that  English  himself,  whilst  conducting  his  canvass  for  re-election, 
and  in  order  to  secure  it,  pledged  himself  to  his  constituents  that  if  returned 
he  would  disrecfard  his  own  bill  and  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union  with 

o 

such  population  as  she  might  have  when  she  made  application.  We  are 
informed  that  every  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  all  the  States  where 
elections  have  recently  been  held  was  pledged  against  the  English  bill,  with 
perhaps  one  or  two  exceptions.  Now,  if  I  had  only  done  as  these  anti- 
Lecompton  men  who  voted  for  the  English  bill  in  Congress,  pledging  them- 
selves to  refuse  to  admit  Kansas  if  she  refused  to  become  a  Slave  State  until 
she  had  a  population  of  93,420,  and  then  returned  to  their  people,  forfeited 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  259 

their  pledge,  and  made  a  new  pledge  to  admit  Kansas  at  any  time  she  applied, 
without  regard  to  population,  I  would  have  had  no  trouble.  You  saw  the 
whole  power  and  patronage  of  the  Federal  Government  wielded  in  Indiana, 
Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania  to  re-elect  anti-Lecompton  men  to  Congress  who  voted 
against  Lecompton,  then  voted  for  the  English  bill,  and  then  denounced  the 
English  bill,  and  pledged  themselves  to  their  people  to  disregard  it.  ]\Iy  sin 
consists  in  not  having  given  a  pledge,  and  then  in  not  having  afterward  for- 
feited it.  For  that  reason,  in  this  State,  every  postmaster,  every  route  agent, 
every  collector  of  the  ports,  and  every  Federal  office-holder  forfeits  his  head 
the  moment  he  expresses  a  preference  for  the  Democratic  candidates  against 
Lincoln  and  his  Abolition  associates.  A  Democratic  Administration  which 
we  helped  to  bring  into  power  deems  it  consistent  with  its  fidelity  to  principle 
and  its  regard  to  duty  to  wield  its  power  in  this  State  in  behalf  of  the  Republi- 
can Abolition  candidates  in  every  county  and  every  Congressional  District 
against  the  Democratic  party.  All  I  have  to  say  in  reference  to  the  matter  is, 
that  if  that  Administration  have  not  regard  enough  for  principle,  if  they  are 
not  sufficiently  attached  to  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party,  to  bury  forever 
their  personal  hostilities  in  order  to  succeed  in  carrying  out  our  glorious  prin- 
ciples, I  have.  I  have  no  personal  difficulty  with  Mr.  Buchanan  or  his  Cabi- 
net. He  chose  to  make  certain  recommendations  to  Congress,  as  he  had  a 
right  to  do,  on  the  Lecompton  question.  I  could  not  vote  in  favor  of  them. 
I  had  as  much  right  to  judge  for  myself  how  I  should  vote  as  he  had  how  he 
should  recommend.  He  undertook  to  say  to  me,  "  If  you  do  not  vote  as  I  tell 
you,  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of  your  friends."  I  replied  to  him,  "  You  did  not 
elect  me.  I  represent  Illinois,  and  I  am  accountable  to  Illinois,  as  my  con- 
stituency, and  to  God ;  but  not  to  the  President  or  to  any  other  power  on 
earth." 

And  now  this  warfare  is  made  on  me  because  I  would  not  surrender  my 
convictions  of  duty,  because  I  would  not  abandon  my  constituency,  and 
receive  the  orders  of  the  executive  authorities  how  I  should  vote  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  I  hold  that  an  attempt  to  control  the  Senate  on  the 
part  of  the  Executive  is  subversive  of  the  principles  of  our  Constitution.  The 
Executive  department  is  independent  of  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  is  inde- 
pendent of  the  President.  In  matters  of  legislation  the  President  has  a  veto 
on  the  action  of  the  Senate,  and  in  appointments  and  treaties  the  Senate  has 
a  veto  on  the  President.  He  has  no  more  right  to  tell  me  how  I  shall  vote  on 
his  appointments  than  I  have  to  tell  him  whether  he  shall  veto  or  approve  a 
bill  that  the  Senate  has  passed.  Whenever  you  recognize  the  right  of  the 
Executive  to  say  to  a  senator,  "  Do  this,  or  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of  your 
friends,"  you  convert  this  government  from  a  republic  into  a  despotism.  When- 
ever you  recognize  the  riglit  of  a  President  to  say  to  a  member  of  Congress, 
"  Vote  as  I  tell  you,  or  I  will  bring  a  power  to  bear  against  you  at  home  which 
will  crush  you,"  you  destroy  the  independence  of  the  representative,  and  convert 
him  into  a  tool  of  Executive  power.  I  resisted  this  invasion  of  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  a  senator,  and  I  intend  to  resist  it  as  long  as  I  have  a  voice  to 
speak  or  a  vote  to  give.  Yet  Mr.  Buchanan  cannot  provoke  me  to  abandon 
one  iota  of  Democratic  principles  out  of  revenge  or  hostility  to  his  course.  I 
stand  by  the  platform  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  by  its  organization,  and 
support  its  nominees.  If  there  are  any  who  choose  to  bolt,  the  fact  only 
shows  that  they  are  not  as  good  Democrats  as  I  am. 

My  friends,  there  never  was  a  time  when  it  was  as  important  for  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  for  all  national  men,  to  rally  and  stand  together,  as  it  is  to-day. 


260  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

We  find  all  sectional  men  giving  np  past  differences  and  continuing  the  one 
question  of  slavery;  and  when  we  find  sectional  men  thus  uniting,  we  should 
unite  to  resist  them  and  their  treasonable  designs.  Such  was  the  case  in  1850, 
when  Clay  left  the  quiet  and  peace  of  his  home,  and  again  entered  upon  public 
life  to  quell  agitation  and  restore  peace  to  a  distracted  Union.  Then  we 
Democrats,  with  Cass  at  our  head,  welcomed  Henry  Clay,  wliom  the  whole 
nation  regarded  as  having  been  preserved  by  God  for  the  times.  He  became 
our  leader  in  that  great  fight,  and  we  rallied  around  him  the  same  as  the 
Whigs  rallied  around  old  Hickory  in  1832  to  pvit  down  nullification.  Thus 
you  see  that  whilst  Whigs  and  Democrats  fought  fearlessly  in  old  times  about 
banks,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular,  and  the  sub-treasury,  all 
united  as  a  band  of  brothers  when  the  peace,  harmony,  or  integrity  of  the 
Union  was  imperilled.  It  was  so  in  1850,  when  Abolitionism  had  even  so 
far  divided  this  country.  North  and  South,  as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  the 
Union ;  Whigs  and  Democrats  united  in  establishing  the  Compromise  Mea- 
sures of  that  year,  and  restoring  tranquillity  and  good  feeling.  These  measures 
passed  on  the  joint  action  of  the  two  parties.  They  rested  on  the  great 
principle  that  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  should  be  lel't 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  them- 
selves. You  Whigs  and  we  Democrats  justified  them  in  that  principle.  In 
1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and 
ISTebraska,  I  brought  forward  the  bill  on  the  same  principle.  In  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  you  find  it  declared  to  be  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the 
Act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it  there- 
from, but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  I  stand  on  that  same  platform  in 
1858  that  I  did  in  1850,  1854,  and  1856.  The  Washington  "  Union,"  pretend- 
ing to  be  the  organ  of  the  Administration,  in  the  number  of  the  5th  of  this 
month  devotes  three  columns  and  a  half  to  establish  these  propositions :  first, 
that  Douglas,  in  his  Freeport  speech,  held  the  same  doctrine  that  he  did  in  his 
Nebraska  bill  in  1854  ;  second,  that  in  1854  Douglas  justified  the  Nebraska 
bill  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  based  upon  the  same  principle  as  Clay's  Com- 
promise Measures  of  1850.  The  "Union"  thus  proved  that  Douglas  was  the 
same  in  1858  that  he  was  in  1856,  1854,  and  1850,  and  consequently  argued 
that  he  was  never  a  Democrat.  Is  it  not  funny  that  I  was  never  a  Democrat  ? 
There  is  no  pretence  that  I  have  changed  a  hair's  breadth.  The  "  Union  " 
proves  by  my  speeches  that  I  explained  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850 
just  as  I  do  now,  and  that  I  explained  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  1854 
just  as  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech,  and  yet  says  that  I  am  not  a  Democrat, 
and  cannot  be  trusted,  because  I  have  not  changed  during  the  whole  of  that 
time.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  in  1854  the  author  of  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  was  considered  a  pretty  good  Democrat.  It  has  occurred  to  me 
that  in  1856,  when  I  was  exerting  every  nerve  and  every  energy  for  James 
Buchanan,  standing  on  the  same  platform  then  that  I  do  now,  that  I  was  a 
pretty  good  Democrat.  They  now  tell  me  that  I  am  not  a  Democrat,  because 
I  assert  tliat  the  people  of  a  Territory,  as  well  as  those  of  a  State,  have  the 
right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  can  or  cannot  exist  in  sucli 
Territory.  Let  me  read  what  James  Buchanan  said  on  that  point  when  he 
accepted  the  Democratic  nomination  for  the  Presidency  in  1856.  In  his  letter 
of  acceptance,  he  used  the  following  language :  — 

"  The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic  slavery,  derived  as  it  has 
been  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of  the 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  261 

majoritj'-,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excitement.  This  legislation  is 
founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and,  in  accordance  with 
them,  has  simply  declared  that  tlie  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  sliall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

Dr.  Hope  will  there  find  my  answer  to  the  question  he  propounded  to  me 
before  I  commenced  sjjeaking.  Of  course,  no  man  will  consider  it  an  answer 
who  is  outside  of  the  Democratic  organization,  bolts  Democratic  nominations, 
and  indirectly  aids  to  put  Abolitionists  into  power  over  Democrats.  But 
whetlier  Dr.  Hope  considers  it  an  answer  or  not,  every  fair-minded  man  will 
see  that  James  Buclianan  has  answered  the  question,  and  has  asserted  that 
the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits.  I  answer  speci- 
fically if  you  want  a  further  answer,  and  say  that  while  under  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  as  recorded  in  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Taney, 
slaves  are  property  like  all  other  property,  and  can  be  carried  into  any 
Territory  of  the  United  States  the  same  as  any  other  description  of  property, 
yet  when  you  get  them  there  they  are  subject  to  the  local  law  of  the  Territory 
just  like  all  other  property.  You  will  find  in  a  recent  speech  delivered  by 
that  able  and  eloquent  statesman,  Hon.  Jefferson  Davis^  at  Bangor,  Maine, 
that  he  took  the  same  view  of  this  subject  that  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech. 
He  there  said  :  — 

"  If  the  inhabitants  of  any  Territory  should  refuse  to  enact  such  laws  and  police 
regulations  as  would  give  security  to  their  property  or  to  liis,  it  would  be  rendered 
more  or  less  valueless  in  proportion  to  the  difficulties  of  holding  it  without  such  pro- 
tection. In  the  case  of  pi-operty  in  the  labor  of  man,  or  what  is  usually  called  slave 
property,  the  insecurity  would  be  so  great  that  the  owner  could  not  ordinarily  retain 
it.  Therefore,  though  the  right  would  remain,  the  remedy  being  withheld,  it  would 
follow  that  the  owner  would  be  practically  debarred,  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  from  taking  slave  property  into  a  Territory  where  tlie  sense  of  the  inhabitants 
was  opposed  to  its  introduction.  So  much  for  the  oft-repeated  fallacy  of  forcing 
slavery  upon  any  community." 

You  will  also  find  that  the  distinguished  Speaker  of  the  present  House  of 
Eepresentatives,  Hon.  Jas.  L.  Orr,  construed  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in 
this  same  way  in  1856,  and  also  that  great  intellect  of  the  South,  Alex.  H. 
Stephens,  put  the  same  construction  upon  it  in  Congress  that  I  did  in  my 
Freeport  speech.  Tlie  whole  South  are  rallying  to  the  support  of  the  doctrine 
that  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery,  they  have  a  right  to  have  it,  and 
if  they  do  not  want  it,  that  no  power  on  earth  can  force  it  upon  them.  I  hold 
that  there  is  no  principle  on  earth  more  sacred  to  all  the  friends  of  freedom  than 
that  which  says  that  no  institution,  no  law,  no  constitution,  should  be  forced 
on  an  unwilling  people  contrary  to  their  wishes  ;  and  I  assert  that  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  bill  contains  that  principle.  It  is  the  great  principle  contained 
in  that  bill.  It  is  the  principle  on  which  James  Buchanan  was  made 
President.  Without  that  principle,  he  never  would  have  been  made  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.  I  will  never  violate  or  abandon  that  doctrine,  if  I 
have  to  stand  alone.  I  have  resisted  the  blandishments  and  threats  of  power 
on  the  one  side,  and  seduction  on  the  other,  and  have  stood  immovably  for 
that  principle,  fighting  for  it  when  assailed  by  Northern  mobs,  or  threatened 
by  Southern  hostility.  1  hav^e  defended  it  against  the  North  and  the  South, 
and  I  will  defend  it  against  whoever  assails  it,  and  I  will  follow  it  wherever 


262  DEBATES    BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

its  logical  conclusions  lead  me.  I  say  to  you  that  there  is  but  one  hope,  one 
safety  for  this  country,  and  that  is  to  stand  immovably  by  that  principle  which 
declares  the  right  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  decide  these  questions 
for  themselves.  Tliis  government  was  founded  on  that  principle,  and  must  be 
administered  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was  founded. 

But  the  Abolition  party  really  think  that  under  the  Declaration  of 
Indej)endence  the  negro  is  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  that  negro  equality 
is  an  inalienable  right  conferred  by  the  Almighty,  and  hence  that  all  human 
laws  in  violation  of  it  are  null  and  void.  With  such  men  it  is  no  use  for  me 
to  argue.  I  hold  that  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  no 
reference  to  negroes  at  all  when  they  declared  all  men  to  be  created  equal. 
They  did  not  mean  negro,  nor  the  savage  Indians,  nor  the  Feejee  Islanders, 
nor  any  other  barbarous  race.  They  were  speaking  of  white  men.  They 
alluded  to  men  of  European  birth  and  European  descent,  —  to  white  men, 
and  to  none  others, —  wlien  they  declared  that  doctrine.  I  hold  that  this 
government  w^as  established  on  the  white  basis.  It  was  establislied  by  white 
men  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be 
administered  by  white  men,  and  none  others.  But  it  does  not  follow,  by  any 
means,  that  merely  because  the  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  and  merely  because  he 
is  not  our  equal,  that,  therefore,  he  should  be  a  slave.  On  the  contrary,  it 
does  follow  that  we  ought  to  extend  to  the  negro  race,  and  to  all  other 
dependent  races,  all  the  rights,  all  the  privileges,  and  all  the  immunities 
which  they  can  exercise  consistently  with  the  safety  of  society.  Humanity 
requires  that  we  should  give  them  all  these  privileges  ;  Christianity  commands 
that  we  should  extend  those  privileges  to  them.  The  question  then  arises. 
What  are  those  privileges,  and  what  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  them  ?  My 
answer  is,  that  that  is  a  question  which  each  State  must  answer  for  itself. 
We  in  Illinois  have  decided  it  for  ourselves.  We  tried  slavery,  kept  it  up 
for  twelve  years,  and  finding  that  it  was  not  profitable,  we  aljolished  it  for 
that  reason,  and  became  a  Free  State.  We  adopted  in  its  stead  the  policy 
that  a  negro  in  this  State  shall  not  be  a  slave  and  shall  not  be  a  citizen.  We 
have  a  riglit  to  adopt  that  policy.  For  my  part,  I  think  it  is  a-  wise  and 
sound  policy  for  us.  You  in  Missouri  must  judge  for  yourselves  whether  it 
is  a  wise  policy  for  you.  If  you  choose  to  follow  our  example,  very  good  ; 
if  you  reject  it,  still  well,  —  it  is  your  business,  not  ours.  So  with  Kentucky. 
Let  Kentucky  adopt  a  policy  to  suit  herself.  If  we  do  not  like  it  we  will 
keep  away  from  it ;  and  if  she  does  not  like  ours,  let  her  stay  at  home,  mind 
her  own  business,  and  let  us  alone.  If  the  people  of  all  the  States  will  act  on 
that  great  principle,  and  each  State  mind  its  own  business,  attend  to  its  own 
affliirs,  take  care  of  its  own  negroes,  and  not  meddle  with  its  neighbors,  then 
there  will  be  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South,  the  East  and  the  West, 
throughout  the  whole  Union. 

Why  can  we  not  thus  have  peace  ?  Why  should  we  thus  allow  a  sectional 
party  to  agitate  this  country,  to  array  the  North  against  the  South,  and  con- 
vert us  into  enemies  instead  of  friends,  merely  that  a  few  ambitious  men  may 
ride  into  power  on  a  sectional  hobby  ?  How  long  is  it  since  tliese  ambitious 
Northern  men  wislied  for  a  sectional  organization  ?  Did  any  one  of  them 
dream  of  a  sectional  party  as  long  as  the  North  was  the  weaker  section  and 
the  South  the  stronger  ?  Then  all  were  opposed  to  sectional  parties ;  but  the 
moment  the  North  obtained  the  majority  in  the  House  and  Senate  by  the 
admission  of  California,  and  could  elect  a  President  without  the  aid  of 
Southern  votes,  that  moment  ambitious  Northern  men  formed  a  scheme  to 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  263 

excite  the  North  agaiust  the  South,  and  make  the  people  be  governed  in 
their  votes  by  geographical  lines,  thinking  that  the  North,  being  the  stronger 
section,  would  outvote  the  South,  and  consequently  they,  the  leaders,  would 
ride  into  office  on  a  sectional  hobby.  I  am  told  tliat  my  hour  is  out.  It 
was  very  short. 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  I  have  been  somewhat,  in  my  own  mind, 
complimented  by  a  large  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech,  —  I  mean  that 
portion  which  he  devotes  to  the  controversy  between  himself  and  the  present 
Administration.  This  is  the  seventh  time  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  have 
met  in  these  joint  discussions,  and  he  has  been  gradually  improving  in  regard 
to  his  war  with  the  Administration.  At  Quincy,  day  before  yesterday,  he 
was  a  little  more  severe  upon  the  Administration  than  I  had  heard  him  upon 
any  occasion,  and  I  took  pains  to  compliment  him  for  it.  I  tlien  told  him  to 
"  Give  it  to  them  with  all  the  power  he  had  ;  "  and  as  some  of  them  were 
present,  I  told  them  I  would  be  very  much  obliged  if  they  would  give  it 
to  him  in  about  the  same  way.  I  take  it  he  has  now  vastly  improved  upon 
the  attack  he  made  then  upon  the  Administration.  I  flatter  myself  he  has 
really  taken  my  advice  on  this  subject.  All  I  can  say  now  is  to  re-commend 
to  him  and  to  them  what  I  then  commended,  —  to  prosecute  the  war  against 
one  another  in  the  most  vigorous  manner.  I  say  to  them  again :  "  Go  it, 
husband  !  — ■  Go  it,  bear  ! " 

There  is  one  other  thing  I  will  mention  before  I  leave  this  branch  of  the 
discussion,  —  although  I  do  not  consider  it  much  of  my  business,  any  wa}^ 
I  refer  to  that  part  of  the  Judge's  remarks  where  he  undertakes  to  involve 
Mr.  Buchanan  in  an  inconsistency.  He  reads  something  from  Mr,  Buchanan, 
from  which  he  undertakes  to  involve  him  in  an  inconsistency;  and  begets 
something  of  a  cheer  for  having  done  so.  I  would  only  remind  the  Judge 
that  while  he  is  very  valiantly  fighting  for  the  Nebraska  bill  and  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  it  has  been  but  a  little  while  since  he  was  the 
valiant  advocate  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  I  want  to  know  if  Buchanan 
has  not  as  much  right  to  be  inconsistent  as  Douglas  has  ?  Has  Douglas  tlie 
exclusive  right,  in  this  country,  of  being  on  all  sides  of  all  questions  ?  Is 
nobody  allowed  tliat  high  privilege  but  himself  ?  Is  he  to  liave  an  entire 
monopoly  on  that  subject  ? 

So  far  as  Judge  Douglas  addressed  his  speech  to  me,  or  so  far  as  it  was 
about  me,  it  is  my  business  to  pay  some  attention  to  it.  I  have  heard  the 
Judge  state  two  or  three  times  what  he  has  stated  to-day,  —  that  in  a  speech 
which  I  made  at  Springfield,  Illinois,  I  had  in  a  very  especial  manner  com- 
plained that  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  decided  that  a 
negro  could  never  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  I  have  omitted  by  some 
accident  heretofore  to  analyze  this  statement,  and  it  is  required  of  me  to 
notice  it  now.  In  point  of  fact  it  is  untrue.  I  never  have  complained  espe- 
cially of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  held  that  a  negro  could  not  be  a 
citizen,  and  the  Judge  is  always  wrong  when  he  says  I  ever  did  so  complain 
of  it.  I  have  the  speech  here,  and  I  will  thank  him  or  any  of  his  friends  to 
show  where  I  said  that  a  negro  should  be  a  citizen,  and  complained  especially 
of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  declared  he  could  not  be  one.     I  have 


264  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

done  uo  sucli  thing ;  and  Judge  Douglas,  so  persistently  insisting  that  I  have 
done  so,  has  strongly  impressed  nie  with  the  belief  of  a  predetermination  on 
his  part  to  misrepresent  me.  He  could  not  get  his  foundation  for  insisting 
that  I  was  in  favor  of  this  negro  equality  anywhere  else  as  well  as  he  could  by 
assuming  that  untrue  proposition.  Let  me  tell  this  audience  what  is  true  in 
regard  to  that  matter ;  and  the  means  by  which  they  ma}^  correct  me  if  I  do 
not  tell  them  truly  is  by  a  recurrence  to  the  speech  itself.  I  spoke  of  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  in  my  Springfield  speech,  and  I  was  then  endeavoring  to  prove 
that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  a  portion  of  a  system  or  scheme  to  make 
slavery  national  in  this  country.  I  pointed  out  what  things  had  been  decided 
by  the  court.  I  mentioned  as  a  fact  that  they  had  decided  that  a  negro  could 
not  be  a  citizen ;  that  they  had  done  so,  as  I  supposed,  to  deprive  the  negro, 
under  all  circumstances,  of  the  remotest  possibility  of  ever  becoming  a 
citizen  and  claiming  the  rights  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  under  a 
certain  clause  of  the  Constitution.  I  stated  that,  without  making  any  com- 
plaint of  it  at  alL  I  then  went  on  and  stated  the  other  points  decided  in  the 
case ;  namely,  that  the  bringing  of  a  negro  into  the  State  of  Illinois  and 
holding  him  in  slavery  for  two  years  here  was  a  matter  in  regard  to  which 
they  would  not  decide  whether  it  would  make  him  free  or  not ;  tliat  they  decided 
the  furtlier  point  that  taking  him  into  a  United  States  Territory  where 
slavery  was  prohibited  by  Act  of  Congress  did  not  make  him  free,  because 
that  Act  of  Congress,  as  they  held,  was  unconstitutional.  I  mentioned  these 
three  things  as  making  up  the  points  decided  in  that  case.  I  mentioned  them 
in  a  lump,  taken  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
and  the  amendment  of  Chase,  offered  at  the  time,  declaratory  of  the  right  of 
the  people  of  the  Territories  to  exclude  slavery,  whicli  was  voted  down  by  the 
friends  of  the  bill.  I  mentioned  all  these  things  together,  as  evidence  tend- 
ing to  prove  a  combination  and  conspiracy  to  make  the  institution  of  slavery 
national.  In  that  connection  and  in  that  way  I  mentioned  the  decision  on 
the  point  that  a  negro  could  not  be  a  citizen,  and  in  no  other  connection. 

Out  of  this.  Judge  Douglas  builds  up  his  beautiful  fabrication  of  my  pur- 
pose to  introduce  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality  between  the  white 
and  black  races.  His  assertion  that  I  made  an  "  especial  objection  "  (that  is 
his  exact  language)  to  the  decision  on  this  account,  is  untrue  in  point  of  fact. 

Now,  while  I  am  upon  this  subject,  and  as  Henry  Clay  has  been  alluded  to, 
I  desire  to  place  myself,  in  connection  with  Mr.  Clay,  as  nearly  right  before 
this  people  as  may  be.  I  am  quite  aware  what  the  Judge's  object  is  here  by 
all  these  allusions.  He  knows  that  we  are  before  an  audience  having  strong 
sympathies  southward,  by  relationship,  place  of  birth,  and  so  on.  He  desires 
to  place  me  in  an  extremely  Abolition  attitude.  He  read  upon  a  former 
occasion,  and  alludes,  without  reading,  to-day  to  a  portion  of  a  speech  which 
I  delivered  in  Chicago.  In  his  quotations  from  that  speech,  as  he  has  made 
them  upon  former  occasions,  the  extracts  were  taken  in  such  a  way  as,  I 
suppose,  brings  them  within  the  definition  of  what  is  called  garbling,  —  tak- 
ing portions  of  a  speech  which,  when  taken  by  themselves,  do  not  present  the 
entire  sense  of  the  speaker  as  expressed  at  the  time.  I  propose,  therefore, 
out  of  that  same  speech,  to  show  how  one  portion  of  it  which  he  skipped 
over  (taking  an  extract  before  and  an  extract  after)  will  give  a  different  idea, 
and  the  true  idea  I  intended  to  convey.  It  will  take  me  some  little  time  to 
read  it,  but  I  believe  I  will  occupy  the  time  that  way. 

You  have  heard  him  frequently  allude  to  my  controversy  M'ith  him  in 
regard  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.     I  confess  that  I  have  had  a 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  265 

strugfrle  with  Judge  Douglas  on  that  matter,  and  I  will  try  briefly  to  place 
myself  right  in  regard  to  it  on  this  occasion.  I  said  —  and  it  is  between  the 
extracts  Judge  Douglas  has  taken  from  this  speech,  and  put  in  his  published 
speeches  :  — 

"It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions  that  make  necessities  and 
impose  them  upon  us,  and  to  the  extent  that  a  necessity  is  imposed  upon  a  man  he 
must  submit  to  it.  I  think  that  was  the  condition  in  which  we  found  ourselves 
wlien  we  established  this  government.  We  had  slaves  among  us,  we  could  not  get 
our  Constitution  unless  we  permitted  them  to  remain  in  slavery,  we  could  not 
secure  the  good  we  did  secure  if  we  grasped  for  more  ;  and  having  by  necessity  sub- 
mitted to  that  nuich,  it  does  not  destroy  the  principle  that  is  the  charter  of  our 
liberties.     Let  the  charter  remain  as  our  standard." 

Now,  I  have  upon  all  occasions  declared  as  strongly  as  Judge  Douglas 
against  the  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  existing  institution  of  slavery. 
You  hear  me  read  it  from  the  same  speech  from  which  he  takes  garbled 
extracts  for  the  purpose  of  proving  upon  me  a  disposition  to  interfere  with 
the  institution  of  slavery,  and  establish  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality 
between  negroes  and  white  people. 

Allow  me  while  upon  this  subject  briefly  to  present  one  other  extract  from 
a  speech  of  mine,  more  than  a  year  ago,  at  Springfield,  in  discussing  this  very 
same  question,  soon  after  Judge  Douglas  took  his  ground  that  negroes  were 
not  included  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  :  — 

"  I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument  intended  to  include  all  men, 
but  they  did  not  mean  to  declare  all  men  equal  in  all  respects.  They  did  not  mean 
to  say  all  men  were  equal  in  color,  size,  intellect,  moral  development,  or  social  capa- 
city. They  defined  with  tolerable  distinctness  in  what  they  did  consider  all  men 
created  equal,  —  equal  in  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness.  This  they  said,  and  this  they  meant.  They  did  not  mean 
to  assert  the  obvious  untruth  that  all  were  then  actually  enjoying  that  equality,  or 
yet  that  they  were  about  to  confer  it  immediately  upon  them.  In  fact,  they  had  no 
power  to  confer  such  a  boon.  They  meant  simply  to  declare  the  right,  so  that  the 
enforcement  of  it  might  follow  as  fast  as  circumstances  should  permit. 

"  They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for  free  society  which  should  be  familiar 
to  all, —  constantly  looked  to,  constantly  labored  for,  and  even,  though  never  perfectly 
attained,  constantly  approximated,  and  thereby  constantly  spreading  and  deepening 
its  influence,  and  augmenting  the  happiness  and  value  of  life  to  all  people,  of  all 
colors,  everywhere." 

There  again  are  the  sentiments  I  have  expressed  in  regard  to  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  upon  a  former  occasion,  —  sentiments  which  have  been 
put  in  print  and  read  wherever  anybody  cared  to  know  what  so  humble  an 
individual  as  myself  chose  to  say  in  regard  to  it. 

At  Galesburgh,  tlie  other  day,  I  said,  in  answer  to  Judge  Douglas,  that 
three  years  ago  there  never  had  been  a  man,  so  far  as  I  knew  or  believed,  in 
the  whole  world,  who  had  said  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not 
include  negroes  in  the  term  "  all  men."  I  reassert  it  to-day.  I  assert  that 
Judge  Douglas  and  all  his  friends  may  search  the  whole  records  of  the  coun- 
try, and  it  will  be  a  matter  of  great  astonishment  to  me  if  they  shall  be  able 
to  find  that  one  human  being  three  years  ago  had  ever  uttered  the  astound- 
ing sentiment  that  the  term  "  all  men  "  in  the  Declaration  did  not  include 
the  negro.  Do  not  let  me  be  misunderstood.  I  know  that  more  than  three 
years  ago  there  were  men  who,  finding  this  assertion  constantly  in  the  way 

34 


266  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

of  their  schemes  to  bring  about  the  ascendency  and  perpetuation  of  slavery, 
denied  the  truth  of  it.  I  know  that  Mr.  Calhoun  and  all  the  politicians  of  his 
school  denied  the  truth  of  the  Declaration.  I  know  that  it  ran  along  in  the 
mouth  of  some  Southern  men  for  a  period  of  years,  ending  at  last  in  that 
shameful,  though  rather  forcible,  declaration  of  Pettit  of  Indiana,  upon  the 
floor  of  the  United  States  Senate,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
in  that  respect  "  a  self-evident  lie,"  rather  than  a  self-evident  truth.  But  I 
say,  with  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  this  hawking  at  the  Declaration  without 
directly  attacking  it,  that  three  years  ago  there  never  had  lived  a  man  who 
had  ventured  to  assail  it  in  the  sneaking  way  of  pretending  to  believe  it,  and 
then  asserting  it  did  not  include  the  negro.  I  believe  the  first  man  who  ever 
said  it  was  Chief  Justice  Taney  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and  the  next  to  him 
was  our  friend  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  And  now  it  has  become  the  catchword 
of  the  entire  party.  I  would  like  to  call  upon  his  friends  everywhere  to  con- 
sider how  they  have  come  in  so  short  a  time  to  view  this  matter  in  a  way  so 
entirely  different  from  their  former  belief ;  to  ask  whether  they  are  not  being 
borne  along  by  an  irresistible  current,  —  whither,  they  know  not. 

In  answer  to  my  proposition  at  Galesburgh  last  week,  I  see  that  some  man 
in  Chicago  has  got  up  a  letter,  addressed  to  the  Chicago  "Times,"  to  show,  as 
he  professes,  that  somebody  had  said  so  before ;  and  he  signs  himself  "  An  Old 
Line  Whig,"  if  I  remember  correctly.  In  the  first  place,  I  would  say  he  icas 
not  an  old  line  Whig.  I  am  somewhat  acquainted  with  old  line  Whigs.  I 
was  with  the  old  line  Whigs  from  the  origin  to  the  end  of  that  party  ;  I 
became  pretty  well  acquainted  with  them,  and  I  know  they  always  had  some 
sense,  whatever  else  you  could  ascribe  to  them.  I  know  there  never  was  one 
who  had  not  more  sense  than  to  try  to  show  by  the  evidence  he  produces  that 
some  man  had,  prior  to  the  time  I  named,  said  that  negroes  were  not  included 
in  the  term  "  all  men  "  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  What  is  the 
evidence  he  produces  ?  I  will  bring  forward  his  evidence,  and  let  you  see 
what  he  offers  by  way  of  showing  that  somebody  more  than  three  years  ago 
had  said  negroes  were  not  included  in  the  Declaration.  He  brings  forward 
part  of  a  speech  from  Henry  Clay,  —  the  part  of  the  speech  of  Henry  Clay 
which  I  used  to  bring  forward  to  prove  precisely  the  contrary.  I  guess  we 
are  surrounded  to  some  extent  to-day  by  the  old  friends  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  they 
will  be  glad  to  hear  anything  from  that  authority.  While  he  was  in  Indiana 
a  man  presented  a  petition  to  liberate  his  negroes,  and  he  (Mr.  Clay)  made  a 
speech  in  answer  to  it,  which  I  suppose  he  carefully  wrote  out  himself  and 
caused  to  be  published.  I  have  before  me  an  extract  from  that  speech  which 
constitutes  the  evidence  this  pretended  "  Old  Line  Whig"  at  Chicago  brought 
forward  to  show  that  Mr.  Clay  did  n't  suppose  the  negro  was  included  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.     Hear  what  Mr.  Clay  said  :  — 

"  And  what  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in  Indiana  to  liberate  the  slaves 
under  my  care  in  Kentucky  1  It  is  a  general  declaration  in  the  act  announcing  to 
the  world  the  independence  of  the  thirteen  American  colonies,  that  all  men  are 
created  equal.  Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  that 
declaration  ;  and  it  is  desirable,  in  the  original  construction  of  society  and  in  organ- 
ized, societies,  to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental  principle.  But,  then,  I  appre- 
hend that  in  no  society  that  ever  did  exist,  or  ever  shall  be  formed,  was  or  can  the 
equality  asserted  among  the  members  of  the  human  race  be  practically  enforced  and 
carried  out.  There  are  portions,  large  portions,  —  women,  minors,  insane,  culprits, 
transient  sojourners,  —  that  will  always  probably  remain  subject  to  the  government 
of  another  portion  of  the  community. 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  267 

"  That  declaration,  whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  its  import,  was  made  by  the 
delegations  of  the  thirteen  States.  In  most  of  them  slavery  existed,  and  had  long 
existed,  and  was  established  by  law.  It  was  introduced  and  forced  upon  tlie  colo- 
nies by  the  paramount  law  of  England.  Do  you  believe  that  in  making  that  declara- 
tion the  States  that  concurred  in  it  intended  that  it  should  be  tortured  into  a  virtual 
emancipation  of  all  the  slaves  within  their  respective  limits'?  Would  Virginia  and 
other  Southern  States  have  ever  united  in  a  declaration  which  was  to  be  interpreted 
into  an  abolition  of  slavery  among  them  ]  Did  any  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies 
entertain  such  a  design  or  expectation  1  To  impute  such  a  secret  and  unavowed 
purpose,  would  be  to  charge  a  political  fraud  upon  the  noblest  band  of  patriots  that 
ever  assembled  in  council,  —  a  fraud  upon  the  Confederacy  of  the  Kevolution;  a 
fraud  upon  the  union  of  those  States  whose  Constitution  not  only  recognized  the 
lawfulness  of  slaverj^,  but  permitted  the  importation  of  slaves  from  Africa  until  the 
year  1808." 

This  is  the  entire  quotation  brought  forward  to  prove  that  somebody 
previous  to  three  years  ago  had  said  the  negro  was  not  included  in  the  term 
"  all  men  "  in  the  Declaration.  How  does  it  do  so  ?  In  what  way  has  it  a 
tendency  to  prove  that  ?  Mr.  Clay  says  it  is  true  as  an  abstract  principle  that 
all  men  are  created  equal,  but  that  we  cannot  practically  apply  it  in  all  cases. 
He  illustrates  this  by  bringing  forward  the  cases  of  females,  minors,  and 
insane  persons,  with  whom  it  cannot  be  enforced  ;  but  he  says  it  is  true  as  an 
abstract  principle  in  the  organization  of  society  as  well  as  in  organized  society 
and  it  should  be  kept  in  view  as  a  fundamental  principle.  Let  me  read  a  few 
words  more  before  I  add  some  comments  of  my  own.  Mr.  Clay  says,  a  little 
further  on :  — 

"  I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery. 
I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and  deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from  the 
parental  government  and  from  our  ancestors.  But  here  they  are,  and  the  question 
is.  How  can  they  be  best  dealt  with  1  If  a  state  of  nature  existed,  and  we  were 
about  to  lay  the  foundations  of  society,  ?to  7nan  would  be  more  strongly  opposed  than 
I  shoidd  be  to  incorporating  the  institution  of  slavery  among  its  elements.^' 

Now,  here  in  this  same  book,  in  this  same  speech,  in  this  same  extract, 
brought  forward  to  prove  that  Mr.  Clay  held  that  the  negro  was  not  included 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  is  no  such  statement  on  his  part,  but  the 
declaration  that  it  is  a  great  fundamental  truth  which  should  be  constantly 
kept  in  view  in  the  organization  of  society  and  in  societies  already  organized. 
But  if  I  say  a  word  about  it ;  if  I  attempt,  as  Mr.  Clay  said  all  good  men 
ought  to  do,  to  keep  it  in  view ;  if,  in  this  "  organized  society,"  I  ask  to  have 
the  public  eye  turned  upon  it ;  if  I  ask,  in  relation  to  the  organization  of  new 
Territories,  that  the  public  eye  should  be  turned  upon  it,  —  forthwith  I  am  villi- 
fied  as  you  hear  me  to-day.  What  have  I  done  that  I  have  not  the  license  of 
Henry  Clay's  illustrious  example  here  in  doing  ?  Have  I  done  aught  that  I 
have  not  his  authority  for,  wliile  maintaining  that  in  organizing  new  Territo- 
ries and  societies,  this  fundamental  principle  should  be  regarded,  and  in  organ- 
ized society  holding  it  up  to  the  public  view  and  recognizing  what  he  recog- 
nized as  the  great  principle  of  free  government  ? 

And  when  this  new  principle  —  this  new  proposition  that  no  human  being 
ever  thought  of  three  years  ago  —  is  brought  forward,  /  combat  it  as  having 
an  evil  tendency,  if  not  an  evil  design.  I  combat  it  as  having  a  tendency  to 
dehumanize  the  negro,  to  take  away  from  him  the  right  of  ever  striving  to  be 
a  man.     I  combat  it  as  being  one  of  the  thousand  things  constantly  done  in 


268  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

these  days  to  prepare  the  puUic  mind  to  make  property,  and  nothing  but  prop- 
erty, of  the  negro  in  all  the  States  of  this  Union. 

But  there  is  a  point  that  I  wish,  before  leaving  this  part  of  the  discussion, 
to  ask  attention  to.     I  have  read  and  I  repeat  the  words  of  Henry  Clay  :  — 

"  I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery. 
I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and  deeply  lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from  the 
parental  government  and  from  our  ancestors.  I  wish  every  slave  in  the  United  States 
was  in  the  country  of  his  ancestors.  But  here  they  are  ;  the  question  is,  How  they 
can  best  be  dealt  with  1  If  a  state  of  nature  existed,  and  we  were  about  to  laj'  the 
foundations  of  society,  no  man  would  be  more  strongly  opposed  than  I  should  be  to 
incorporate  the  institution  of  slavery  among  its  elements." 

The  principle  upon  which  I  have  insisted  in  this  canvass  is  in  relation  to 
laying  the  foundations  of  new  societies.  I  have  never  sought  to  apply  these 
principles  to  the  old  States  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  slavery  in  those  States. 
It  is  nothing  but  a  miserable  perversion  of  what  I  have  said,  to  assume  that  I 
have  declared  Missouri,  or  any  other  Slave  State,  shall  emancipate  her  slaves ; 
I  have  proposed  no  such  thing.  But  when  Mr.  Clay  says  that  in  laying  the 
foundations  of  societies  in  our  Territories  where  it  does  not  exist,  he  would  be 
opposed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery  as  an  element,  I  insist  that  we  have 
his  warrant — his  license  —  for  insisting  upon  the  exclusion  of  that  element 
which  he  declared  in  such  strong  and  emphatic  language  was  most  hateful 
to  him. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again  referred  to  a  Springfield  speech  in  which  T  said 
"  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  The  Judge  has  so  often  made 
the  entire  quotation  from  that  speech  that  I  can  make  it  from  memory.  I  used 
this  language :  — 

"  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  initiated  with  the  avowed 
object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Under  the 
operation  of  this  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly 
augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached 
and  passed.  -A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  beheve  this  govern- 
ment cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free,  I  do  not  expect  the 
house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one 
thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it 
shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  —  old  as  well  as  ne-w.  North  as  well  as 
South." 

That  extract  and  the  sentiments  expressed  in  it  have  been  extremely  offen- 
sive to  Judge  Douglas.  He  has  warred  upon  them  as  Satan  wars  upon  the 
Bible.  His  perversions  upon  it  are  endless.  Here  now  are  my  views  upon  it 
in  brief. 

I  said  we  were  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  initiated  with 
the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery 
agitation.  Is  it  not  so  ?  When  that  Nebraska  hill  was  brought  forward  four 
years  ago  last  January,  was  it  not  for  the  '•'  avowed  object "  of  putting  an  end 
to  the  slavery  agitation  ?  We  were  to  have  no  more  agitation  in  Congress ;  it 
was  all  to  be  banished  to  the  Territories.  By  the  way,  I  will  remark  here  that, 
as  Judge  Douglas  is  very  fond  of  complimenting  Mr.  Crittenden  in  these  days. 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  269 

Mr.  Crittenden  has  said  there  was  a  falsehood  in  that  whole  business,  for  there 
was  no  slavery  agitation  at  that  time  to  allay.  We  were  for  a  little  while  quiet 
on  the  troublesome  thing,  and  that  very  allaying  plaster  of  Judge  Douglas's 
stirred  it  up  again.  But  was  it  not  understood  or  intimated  with  the  "  con- 
fident promise  "  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  ?  Surely  it  was. 
In  every  speech  you  heard  Judge  Douglas  make,  until  he  got  into  this 
"  imbroglio,"  as  they  call  it,  with  the  Administration  about  the  Lecompton 
Constitution,  every  speech  on  that  Nebraska  bill  was  full  of  his  felicitations 
that  we  were  just  at  the  end  of  the  slavery  agitation.  The  last  tip  of  the  last 
joint  of  the  old  serpent's  tail  was  just  drawing  out  of  view.  But  has  it  proved 
so  ?  I  have  asserted  that  under  that  policy  that  agitation  "  has  not  only  not 
ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented."  When  was  there  ever  a  greater  agi- 
tation in  Congress  than  last  winter  ?  When  was  it  as  great  in  the  country 
as  to-day  ? 

There  was  a  collateral  object  in  the  introduction  of  that  Nebraska  policy, 
which  was  to  clothe  the  people  of  the  Territories  with  a  superior  degree  of 
self-government,  beyond  what  they  had  ever  had  before.  The  first  object  and 
the  main  one  of  conferring  upon  the  people  a  higher  degree  of  "  self-govern- 
ment "  is  a  question  of  fact  to  be  determined  by  you  in  answer  to  a  single 
question.  Have  you  ever  heard  or  known  of  a  people  anywhere  on  earth  who 
had  as  little  to  do  as,  in  the  first  instance  of  its  use,  the  people  of  Kansas  had 
with  this  same  right  of  "  self-government "  ?  In  its  main  policy  and  in  its  col- 
lateral object,  it  has  heen  nothing  but  a  living,  creeping  lie  froni  the  time  of  its 
introduction  till  to-day. 

I  have  intimated  that  I  thought  the  agitation  would  not  cease  until  a  crisis 
should  have  been  reached  and  passed.  I  have  stated  in  what  way  I  thought  it 
would  be  reached  and  passed.  I  have  said  that  it  might  go  one  way  or  the 
other.  We  might,  by  arresting  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  placing  it  where 
the  fathers  originally  placed  it,  put  it  where  the  public  mind  should  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  Thus  the  agitation 
may  cease.  It  may  be  pushed  forward  until  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in 
all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South.  I  have  said,  and  I 
repeat,  my  wish  is  that  the  further  spread  of  it  may  be  arrested,  and  that  it 
may  be  placed  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  have  expressed  that  as  my  wish.  I  enter- 
tain the  opinion,  upon  evidence  sufiEicient  to  my  mind,  that  the  fathers  of  this 
government  placed  that  institution  where  the  public  mind  did  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  Let  me  ask  why  they 
made  provision  that  the  source  of  slavery  —  the  African  slave-trade  —  should 
be  cut  off  at  the  end  of  twenty  years  ?  Why  did  they  make  provision  that 
in  all  the  new  territory  we  owned  at  that  time  slavery  should  be  forever 
inhibited  ?  Why  stop  its  spread  in  one  direction,  and  cut  off  its  source  in 
another,  if  they  did  not  look  to  its  being  placed  in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction  ? 

Again  :  the  institution  of  slavery  is  only  mentioned  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  two  or  three  times,  and  in  neither  of  these  cases  does  the 
W' ord  "  slavery "  or  "  negi-o  race "  occur ;  but  covert  language  is  used  each 
time,  and  for  a  purpose  full  of  significance.  What  is  the  language  in  regard  to 
the  prohibition  of  the  African  slave-trade  ?  It  runs  in  about  this  way :  "  The 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing 
shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to 
the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight." 


270  DEBATES  BETWEEN   ABRAHAxM  LINCOLN 

The  next  allusion  in  the  Constitution  to  the  question  of  slavery  and  the 
black  race  is  on  the  subject  of  the  basis  of  representation,  and  there  the  lan- 
guage used  is :  — 

"  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States 
which  may  be  included  within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which 
shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  wdiole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those 
bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  —  three-fifths 
of  all  other  persons." 

It  says  "  persons,"  not  slaves,  not  negroes  ;  but  this  "  three-fifths  "  can  be 
applied  to  no  other  class  among  us  than  the  negroes. 

Lastly,  in  the  provision  for  the  reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves,  it  is  said  : 
"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escap- 
ing into  another,  shall  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein  be  dis- 
charged from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due."  There  again  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  word  "  negro "  or  of  slavery.  In  all  three  of  these  places, 
being  the  only  allusions  to  slavery  in  the  instrument,  covert  language  is  used. 
Language  is  used  not  suggesting  that  slavery  existed  or  that  the  black  race 
were  among  us.  And  I  understand  the  contemporaneous  history  of  those 
times  to  be  that  covert  language  was  used  with  a  purpose,  and  that  purpose 
was  that  in  our  Constitution,  which  it  was  hoped  and  is  still  hoped  will  endure 
forever,  —  when  it  should  be  read  by  intelligent  and  patriotic  men,  after  the 
institution  of  slavery  had  passed  from  among  us,  —  there  should  be  nothing 
on  the  face  of  the  great  charter  of  liberty  suggesting  that  such  a  thing  as 
negro  slavery  had  ever  existed  among  us.  This  is  part  of  the  evidence  that 
the  fathers  of  the  government  expected  and  intended  the  institution  of  slav- 
ery to  come  to  an  end.  They  expected  and  intended  that  it  should  be  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction.  And  when  I  say  that  I  desire  to  see  the  further 
spread  of  it  arrested,  I  only  say  I  desire  to  see  that  done  which  the  fathers 
have  first  done.  When  I  say  I  desire  to  see  it  placed  where  the  public  mind 
will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  I  only  say 
I  desire  to  see  it  placed  where  they  placed  it.  It  is  not  true  that  our  fathers, 
as  Judge  Douglas  assumes,  made  this  government  part  slave  and  part  free. 
L^nderstand  the  sense  in  which  he  puts  it.  He  assumes  that  slavery  is  a 
rightful  thing  within  itself,  —  was  introduced  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  exact  truth  is,  that  they  found  the  institution  existing  among  us, 
and  they  left  it  as  they  found  it.  But  in  making  the  government  they  left 
this  institution  with  many  clear  marks  of  disapprobation  upon  it.  They  found 
slavery  among  them,  and  they  left  it  among  them  because  of  the  difficulty  — 
the  absolute  impossibility — of  its  immediate  removal.  And  when  Judge 
Douglas  asks  me  why  we  cannot  let  it  remain  part  slave  and  part  free,  as  the 
fathers  of  the  government  made  it,  he  asks  a  question  based  upon  an  assump- 
tion which  is  itself  a  falsehood  ;  and  I  turn  upon  him  and  ask  him  the  ques- 
tion, when  the  policy  that  the  fathers  of  the  government  had  adopted  in 
relation  to  this  element  among  us  was  the  best  policy  in  the  world,  the  only 
wise  policy,  the  only  policy  that  we  can  ever  safely  continue  upon,  that  will 
ever  give  us  peace,  unless  this  dangerous  element  masters  us  all  and  becomes 
a  national  institution,  —  /  hirn  nj^on  him  and  ask  him  tvhy  he  could  not  leave 
it  alone.  I  turn  and  ask  him  why  he  was  driven  to  the  necessity  of  introduc- 
ing a  nevj  policy  in  regard  to  it.  He  has  himself  said  he  introduced  a  new 
policy.     He  said  so  in  his  speech  on  the  22d  of  March  of  the  present  year. 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  271 

1858.  I  ask  him  why  he  could  not  let  it  remain  where  our  fathers  placed  it. 
I  ask,  too,  of  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  why  we  shall  not  again  place  this 
institution  upon  the  basis  on  which  the  fathers  left  it.  I  ask  you,  when  he 
infers  that  I  am  in  favor  of  setting  the  Free  and  Slave  States  at  war,  when  the 
institution  was  placed  in  that  attitude  by  those  who  made  the  Constitution, 
did  they  make  any  war  ?  If  we  had  no  war  out  of  it  when  thus  placed,  wherein 
is  the  ground  of  belief  that  we  shall  have  war  out  of  it  if  we  return  to  that 
policy  ?  Have  we  had  any  peace  upon  this  matter  springing  from  any  other 
basis  ?  I  maintain  that  we  have  not.  I  have  proposed  nothing  more  than  a 
return  to  the  policy  of  the  fathers. 

I  confess,  when  I  propose  a  certain  measure  of  policy,  it  is  not  enough  for 
me  that  I  do  not  intend  anything  evil  in  tlie  result,  but  it  is  incumbent  on  me 
to  show  that  it  has  not  a  tendency  to  that  result.  I  have  met  Judge  Douglas 
in  that  point  of  view.  I  have  not  only  made  the  declaration  that  I  do  not 
mean  to  produce  a  conflict  between  the  States,  but  I  have  tried  to  show  by 
fair  reasoning,  and  I  think  I  have  shown  to  the  minds  of  fair  men,  that  I  pro- 
pose nothing  but  what  has  a  most  peaceful  tendency.  The  quotation  that  I 
happened  to  make  in  that  Springfield  speech,  that  "  a  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand,"  and  which  has  proved  so  offensive  to  the  Judge,  was  part 
and  parcel  of  the  same  thing.  He  tries  to  show  that  variety  in  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  different  States  is  necessary  and  indispensable.  I  do  not 
dispute  it.  I  have  no  controversy  with  Judge  Douglas  about  that.  I  shall 
very  readily  agree  with  him  that  it  would  be  foolish  for  us  to  insist  upon  hav- 
ing a  cranberry  law  here  in  Illinois,  where  we  have  no  cranberries,  because 
they  have  a  cranberry  law  in  Indiana,  where  they  have  cranberries.  I  should 
insist  that  it  would  be  exceedingly  wrong  in  us  to  deny  to  Virginia  the  right 
to  enact  oyster  laws,  where  they  have  oysters,  because  we  want  no  such  laws 
here.  I  understand,  I  hope,  quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas  or  anybody  else, 
that  the  variety  in  the  soil  and  climate  and  face  of  the  country,  and  consequent 
variety  in  the  industrial  pursuits  and  productions  of  a  country,  require  sys- 
tems of  law  conforming  to  this  variety  in  the  natural  features  of  the  country. 
I  understand  quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas  that  if  we  here  raise  a  barrel  of 
flour  more  than  we  want,  and  the  Louisianians  raise  a  barrel  of  sugar  more 
than  they  want,  it  is  of  mutual  advantage  to  exchange.  That  produces  com- 
merce, brings  us  together,  and  makes  us  better  friends.  We  like  one  another 
the  more  for  it.  And  I  understand  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  anybody  else, 
that  these  mutual  accommodations  are  the  cements  which  bind  together  the 
different  parts  of  this  Union ;  that  instead  of  being  a  thing  to  "  divide  the 
house,"  —  figuratively  expressing  the  Union,  —  they  tend  to  sustain  it;  they 
are  the  props  of  the  house,  tending  always  to  hold  it  up. 

But  when  I  have  admitted  all  this,  I  ask  if  there  is  any  parallel  between 
these  things  and  this  institution  of  slavery  ?  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any 
parallel  at  all  between  them.  Consider  it.  When  have  we  had  any  difficulty 
or  quarrel  amongst  ourselves  about  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana,  or  the  oyster 
laws  of  Virginia,  or  the  pine-lumber  laws  of  Maine,  or  the  fact  that  Louisiana 
produces  sugar,  and  Illinois  flour?  When  have  we  had  any  quarrels  over 
these  things  ?  When  have  we  had  perfect  peace  in  regard  to  this  thing  which 
I  say  is  an  element  of  discord  in  this  Union  ?  AVe  have  sometimes  had  peace, 
but  when  was  it  ?  It  was  when  the  institution  of  slavery  remained  quiet 
where  it  was.  We  have  had  difficulty  and  turmoil  whenever  it  has  made  a 
struggle  to  spread  itself  where  it  was  not.  I  ask,  then,  if  experience  does  not 
speak  in  thunder-tones,  telling  us  that  the  policy  which  has  given  peace  to  the 


272  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

country  heretofore,  beinjr  returned  to,  gives  the  greatest  promise  of  peace  again. 
You  may  say,  and  Judge  Douglas  has  intimated  the  same  thing,  that  all  this 
ditiiculty  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  is  the  mere  agitation  of  ofdce- 
seekers  and  ambitious  Northern  politicians.  He  thinks  we  want  to  get  "  his 
place,"  I  suppose.  I  agree  that  there  are  office-seekers  amongst  us.  The 
Bible  says  somewhere  that  we  are  desperately  selfish.  I  think  we  would 
have  discovered  that  fact  without  the  Bible.  I  do  not  claim  that  I  am  any 
less  so  than  the  average  of  men,  but  I  do  claim  that  I  am  not  more  selfish  than 
Judge  Douglas. 

But  is  it  true  that  all  the  difficulty  and  agitation  we  have  in  regard  to  this 
institution  of  slavery  springs  from  office-seeking,  from  the  mere  ambition  of 
politicians  ?  Is  that  the  truth  ?  How  many  times  have  we  had  danger  from 
this  question  ?  Go  back  to  the  day  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Go  back 
to  the  Nullification  question,  at  the  bottom  of  which  lay  this  same  slavery 
question.  Go  back  to  the  time  of  the  Annexation  of  Texas.  Go  back  to  the 
troubles  that  led  to  the  Compromise  of  1850.  You  will  find  that  every  time, 
with  the  single  exception  of  the  Nullification  question,  they  sprung  from  an 
endeavor  to  spread  this  institution.  There  never  was  a  party  in  the  history 
of  this  country,  and  there  probably  never  will  be,  of  sufficient  strength  to  dis- 
turb the  general  peace  of  the  country.  Parties  themselves  may  be  divided 
and  quarrel  on  minor  questions,  yet  it  extends  not  beyond  the  parties  them- 
selves. But  does  not  this  question  make  a  disturbance  outside  of  political 
circles  ?  Does  it  not  enter  into  the  churches  and  rend  them  asunder  ?  What 
divided  the  great  Methodist  Church  into  two  parts,  North  and  South  ?  What 
has  raised  this  constant  disturbance  in  every  Presbyterian  General  Assembly 
that  meets  ?  What  disturbed  the  Unitarian  Church  in  this  very  city  two 
years  ago  ?  What  has  jarred  and  shaken  the  great  American  Tract  Society 
recently,  not  yet  splitting  it,  but  sure  to  divide  it  in  the  end  ?  Is  it  not  this 
same  mighty,  deep-seated  power  that  somehow  operates  on  the  minds  of  men, 
exciting  and  stirring  them  up  in  every  avenue  of  society,  —  in  politics,  in 
religion,  in  literature,  in  morals,  in  all  the  manifold  relations  of  life  ?  Is  this 
the  work  of  politicians  ?  Is  that  irresistible  power,  which  for  fifty  years  has 
shaken  the  government  and  agitated  tlie  people,  to  be  stilled  and  subdued  by 
pretending  that  it  is  an  exceedingly  simple  thing,  and  we  ought  not  to  talk 
about  it  ?  If  you  will  get  everybody  else  to  stop  talking  about  it,  I  assure  you 
I  will  quit  before  they  have  half  done  so.  But  where  is  the  philosophy  or 
statesmanship  which  assumes  that  you  can  quiet  that  disturbing  element  in 
our  society  which  has  disturbed  us  for  more  than  half  a  century,  which  has 
been  the  only  serious  danger  that  has  threatened  our  institutions,  —  I  say, 
where  is  the  philosophy  or  the  statesmanship  based  on  the  assumption  that  we 
are  to  quit  talking  about  it,  and  that  the  public  mind  is  all  at  once  to  cease 
being  agitated  by  it  ?  Yet  this  is  the  policy  here  in  the  North  tliat  Douglas 
is  advocating,  —  that  we  are  to  care  nothing  about  it !  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a 
false  philosophy.  Is  it  not  a  false  statesmanship  that  undertakes  to  build  up 
a  system  of  policy  upon  the  basis  of  caring  nothing  about  the  very  tiling  that 
everyhody  does  care  the  most  about  ?  —  a  thing  which  all  experience  has  shown 
we  care  a  very  great  deal  about  ? 

The  Judge  alludes  very  often  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  to  the  exclusive 
rin'ht  which  the  States  have  to  decide  the  whole  thing  for  themselves.  I  agree 
with  him  very  readily  that  the  different  States  have  that  right.  He  is  but 
fighting  a  man  of  straw  when  he  assumes  that  I  am  contending  against  the 
right  of  the  States  to  do  as  they  please  about  it.     Our  controversy  with  him 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  273 


is  in  regard  to  tlie  new  Territories.  We  agree  that  when  the  States  come  in 
as  States  they  have  the  right  and  the  power  to  do  as  they  please.  We  have 
no  power  as  citizens  of  the  Free  States,  or  in  our  Federal  capacity  as  members 
of  the  Federal  Union  through  the  General  Government,  to  disturb  slavery  in 
the  States  where  it  exists.  We  profess  constantly  that  we  have  no  more 
inclination  than  belief  in  the  power  of  the  government  to  disturb  it ;  yet  we 
are  driven  constantly  to  defend  ourselves  from  the  assumption  that  we  are 
warring  upon  the  rights  of  the  States.  What  I  insist  upon  is,  that  the  new 
Territories  shall  be  kept  free  from  it  while  in  the  Territorial  condition. 
Judge  Douglas  assumes  that  we  have  no  interest  in  them,  —  that  we  have  no 
riglit  whatever  to  interfere.  I  think  we  have  some  interest.  I  think  that  as 
white  men  we  have.  Do  we  not  wish  for  an  outlet  for  our  surplus  popula- 
tion, if  I  may  so  express  myself  ?  Do  we  not  feel  an  interest  in  getting  to 
that  outlet  with  such  institutions  as  we  would  like  to  have  prevail  there  ?  If 
you  go  to  the  Territory  opposed  to  slavery,  and  another  man  comes  upon  the 
same  ground  with  his  slave,  upon  the  assumption  that  the  things  are  equal,  it 
turns  out  that  lie  has  the  equal  right  all  his  way,  and  you  have  no  part  of  it 
your  way.  If  he  goes  in  and  makes  it  a  Slave  Territory,  and  by  consequence 
a  Slave  State,  is  it  not  time  that  those  who  desire  to  have  it  a  Free  State  were 
on  equal  ground  ?  Let  me  suggest  it  in  a  different  way.  How  many  Demo- 
crats are  there  about  here  ["  A  thousand "]  who  have  left  Slave  States  and 
come  into  the  Free  State  of  Illinois  to  get  rid  of  the  institution  of  slavery  ? 
[Another  voice  :  "  A  thousand  and  one."]  I  reckon  there  are  a  thousand  and 
one.  I  will  ask  you,  if  the  policy  you  are  now  advocating  had  prevailed  when 
this  country  was  in  a  Territorial  condition,  where  would  you  have  gone  to  get 
rid  of  it  ?  Where  would  you  have  found  your  Free  State  or  Territory  to  go 
to  ?  And  when  hereafter,  for  any  cause,  the  people  in  this  place  shall  desire 
to  find  new  homes,  if  they  wish  to  be  rid  of  the  institution,  where  will  they 
find  the  place  to  go  to  ? 

Now,  irrespective  of  the  moral  aspect  of  this  question  as  to  whether  there 
is  a  ri<>ht  or  wrona;  in  enslaving  a  nesjro,  I  am  still  in  favor  of  our  new  Terri- 
tories  being  in  such  a  condition  that  white  men  may  find  a  home,  —  may  find 
some  spot  where  they  can  better  their  condition  ;  where  they  can  settle  upon 
new  soil  and  better  their  condition  in  life.  I  am  in  favor  of  this,  not  merely 
(I  must  say  it  here  as  I  have  elsewhere)  for  our  own  people  who  are  born 
amongst  us,  but  as  an  outlet  for  free  white  people  evcryiohere,  the  world  over, 
—  in  which  Hans,  and  Baptiste,  and  Patrick,  and  all  other  men  from  all  tlie 
world,  may  find  new  homes  and  better  their  conditions  in  life. 

I  have  stated  upon  former  occasions,  and  I  may  as  well  state  again,  what  I 
understand  to  be  the  real  issue  in  this  controversy  between  Judge  Douglas 
and  myself.  On  the  point  of  my  wanting  to  make  war  between  the  Free 
and  the  Slave  States,  there  has  been  no  issue  between  us.  So,  too,  when  he 
assumes  that  I  am  in  favor  of  introducing  a  perfect  social  and  political 
equality  between  the  white  and  black  races.  These  are  false  issues,  upon 
which  Judge  Douglas  has  tried  to  force  the  controversy.  There  is  no  founda- 
tion in  truth  for  the  charge  that  I  maintain  either  of  these  propositions.  The 
real  issue  in  this  controversy  —  the  one  pressing  upon  every  mind — is  the 
sentiment  on  the  part  of  one  class  that  looks  upon  the  institution  of  slavery 
as  a  torong,  and  of  another  class  that  does  not  look  upon  it  as  a  wrong.  The 
sentiment  that  contemplates  the  institution  of  slavery  in  this  country  as  a 
wrong  is  the  sentiment  of  the  Republican  party.  It  is  tlie  sentiment  around 
which  all  their  actions,  all  their  arguments,  circle,  from  which  all  their  propo- 

35 


274  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

sitions  radiate.  They  look  upon  it  as  being  a  moral,  social,  and  political 
wrong;  and  while  they  contemplate  it  as  such,  they  nevertheless  have  due 
regard  for  its  actual  existence  among  us,  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of 
it  in  any  satisfactory  way  and  to  all  the  constitutional  obligations  thrown 
about  it.  Yet,  having  a  due  regard  for  these,  they  desire  a  policy  in  regard  to 
it  that  looks  to  its  not  creating  any  more  danger.  They  insist  that  it  should, 
as  far  as  may  be,  le  treated  as  a  wrong  ;  and  one  of  the  methods  of  treating  it 
as  a  wrong  is  to  make  provision  that  it  shall  grow  no  larger.  They  also  desire  a 
policy  that  looks  to  a  peaceful  end  of  slavery  at  some  time,  as  being  wrong. 
These  are  the  views  they  entertain  in  regard  to  it  as  I  understand  them ;  and 
all  their  sentiments,  all  their  arguments  and  propositions,  are  brought  within 
this  range.  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  if  there  be  a  man  amongst 
us  who  does  not  think  that  the  institution  of  slavery  is  wrong  in  any  one  of 
the  aspects  of  which  I  have  spoken,  he  is  misplaced,  and  ought  not  to  be  with 
us.  And  if  there  be  a  man  amongst  us  who  is  so  impatient  of  it  as  a  wrong 
as  to  disregard  its  actual  presence  among  us  and  the  difficulty  of  getting  rid 
of  it  suddenly  in  a  satisfactory  way,  and  to  disregard  the  constitutional  obliga- 
tions thrown  about  it,  that  man  is  misplaced  if  he  is  on  our  platform.  We 
disclaim  sympathy  with  him  in  practical  action.  He  is  not  placed  properly 
with  us. 

On  this  subject  of  treating  it  as  a  wrong,  and  limiting  its  spread,  let  me 
say  a  word.  Has  anything  ever  threatened  the  existence  of  this  Union  save 
and  except  this  very  institution  of  slavery  ?  What  is  it  that  we  hold  most 
dear  amongst  us  ?  Our  own  liberty  and  prosperity.  What  has  ever  threat- 
ened our  liberty  and  prosperity,  save  and  except  this  institution  of  slavery  ? 
If  this  is  true,  how  do  you  propose  to  improve  the  condition  of  things  by 
enlarging  slavery,  —  by  spreading  it  out  and  making  it  bigger  ?  You  may 
have  a  wen  or  cancer  upon  your  person,  and  not  be  able  to  cut  it  out,  lest  you 
bleed  to  death;  but  surely  it  is  no  way  to  cure  it,  to  engraft  it  and  spread  it 
over  your  whole  body.  That  is  no  proper  way  of  treating  what  you  regard  a 
wrong.  You  see  this  peaceful  way  of  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong,  —  restrict- 
ing the  spread  of  it,  and  not  allowing  it  to  go  into  new  countries  where  it  has 
not  already  existed.  That  is  the  peaceful  way,  the  old-fashioned  way,  the 
way  in  which  the  fathers  themselves  set  us  the  example. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  have  said  there  is  a  sentiment  which  treats  it  as  not 
being  wrong.  That  is  the  Democratic  sentiment  of  this  day.  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  every  man  who  stands  within  that  range  positively  asserts  that  it 
is  right.  That  class  will  include  all  who  positively  assert  that  it  is  right,  and 
all  who,  like  Judge  Douglas,  treat  it  as  indifferent  and  do  not  say  it  is  either 
rioht  or  wrong.  These  two  classes  of  men  fall  within  the  general  class  of  those 
who  do  not  look  upon  it  as  a  wrong.  And  if  there  be  among  you  anybody  who 
supposes  that  he,  as  a  Democrat,  can  consider  himself  "  as  much  opposed  to 
slavery  as  anybody,"  I  would  like  to  reason  with  him.  You  never  treat  it  as 
a  wrong.  What  other  thing  that  you  consider  as  a  wrong  do  you  deal  with 
as  you  deal  with  that  ?  Perhaps  you  say  it  is  wrong,  but  your  leader  never 
does,  and  you  quarrel  with  anyhody  who  says  it  is  wrong.  Although  you  pre- 
tend to  say  so  yourself,  you  can  find  no  fit  place  to  deal  with  it  as  a  wrong. 
You  must  not  say  anything  about  it  in  the  Free  States,  because  it  is  not 
here.  You  must  not  say  anything  about  it  in  the  Slave  States,  because  it  is 
there.  You  must  not  say  anything  about  it  in  the  pulpit,  because  that  is 
religion,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  You  must  not  say  anything  about  it 
in  politics,  because  that  will  disturb  the  security  of  " my  place"     There  is  no 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  275 

place  to  talk  about  it  as  being  a  wrong,  although  you  say  yourself  it  is 
a  wrong.     But,  finally,  you  will  screw  yourself  up  to  the  belief  that  if  the 
people  of  the  Slave  States  should  adopt  a  system  of  gradual  emancipation  on 
the  slavery  question,  you  would  be  in  favor  of  it.     You  would  be  in  favor  of 
it.     You  say  that  is  getting  it  in  the  right  place,  and  you  would  be  glad  to  see 
it  succeed.     But  you  are  deceiving  yourself     You  all  know  that  Frank  Blair 
and  Gratz  Brown,  down  there  in  St.  Louis,  undertook  to  introduce  that  system 
in  Missouri.     They  fought  as  valiantly  as  they  could  for  the  system  of  gradual 
emancipation  which  you  pretend  you  would  be  glad  to  see  succeed.     Now,  I  will 
bring  you  to  the  test.     After  a  hard  fight  they  were  beaten,  and  when  the  news 
came  over  here,  you  threw  up  your  hats  and  hnrrahccl  for  Democracy.     More 
than  that,  take  all  the  argument  made  in  favor  of  the  system  you  have  pro- 
posed, and  it  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  anything  wrong  in  the 
institution  of  slavery.     The  arguments  to  sustain  that  policy  carefully  excluded 
it.     Even  here  to-day  you  heard  Judge  Douglas  quarrel  with  me  because  I 
uttered  a  wisli  that  it  might  sometime  come  to  an  end.     Although  Henry  Clay 
could  say  he  wished  every  slave  in  the  United  States  was  in  the  country 
of  his  ancestors,  I  am  denounced  by  those  pretending  to  respect  Henry  Clay 
for  uttering  a  wish  that  it  might  sometime,  in  some  peaceful  way,  come  to  an 
end.     The  Democratic  policy  in  regard  to  that  institution  will  not  tolerate  the 
merest  breath,  the  shghtest  hint,  of  the  least  degree  of  wrong  about  it.     Try 
it  by  some  of  Judge  Douglas's  arguments.     He  says  he  "  don't  care  whether  it  is 
voted  up  or  voted  down  "  in  the  Territories.     I  do  not  care  myself,  in  dealing 
with  that  expression,  whether  it  is  intended  to  be  expressive  of  his  individual 
sentiments  on  the  subject,  or  only  of  the  national  policy  he  desires  to  have 
established.     It  is  alike  valuable  for  my  purpose.     Any  man  can  say  that  who 
does  not  see  anything  wrong  in  slavery ;  but  no  man  can  logically  say  it  who 
does  see  a  wrong  in  it,  because  no  man  can  logically  say  he  don't  care  whether 
a  wrong  is  voted  up  or  voted  down.     He  may  say  he  don't  care  whetlier  an 
indifferent  thing  is  voted  up  or  down,  but  he  must  logically  have  a  choice 
between  a  right  thing  and  a  wrong  thing.     He  contends  that  whatever  com- 
munity  wants  slaves  has  a  right  to  have  them.     So  they  have,  if  it  is  not  a 
wrong.     But  if  it  is  a  wrong,  he  cannot  say  people  have  a  right  to  do  wrong. 
He  says  that  upon  the  score  of  equality,  slaves  should  be  allowed  to  go  in  a 
new  Territory,  like  other  property.     This  is  strictly  logical  if  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  it  and  other  property.     If  it  and  other  property  are  equal,  his 
argument  is  entirely  logical.     But  if  you  insist  that  one  is  wrong  and  the 
other  right,  there  is  no  use  to  institute  a  comparison  between  right  and  wrong. 
You  may  turn  over  everything  in  the  Democratic  policy  from  beginning  to 
end,  whether  in  the  shape  it  takes  on  the  statute  book,  in  the  shape  it  takes 
in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in  the  shape  it  takes  in  conversation,  or  the  shape 
it  takes  in  short  maxim-like  arguments,  —  it  everywhere  carefully  excludes 
the  idea  that  there  is  anything  wrong  in  it. 

That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue  that  will  continue  in  this  country 
when  these  poor  tongues  of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  shall  be  silent.  It  is 
the  eternal  struggle  between  these  two  principles  —  right  and  wrong  —  through- 
out the  world.  They  are  tlie  two  principles  that  have  stood  face  to  face  from 
the  beginning  of  time,  and  will  ever  continue  to  struggle.  The  one  is  the 
common  right  of  humanity,  and  the  other  the  divine  right  of  kings.  It  is  the 
same  principle  in  whatever  shape  it  develops  itself.  It  is  the  same  spirit 
that  says,  "  You  work  and  toil  and  earn  bread,  and  I  '11  eat  it."  No  matter  in 
what  shape  it  comes,  whether  from  the  mouth  of  a  king  who  seeks  to  bestride 


276  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

the  people  of  his  own  nation  and  live  by  the  fruit  of  their  labor,  or  from  one 
race  of  men  as  an  apology  for  enslaving  anotlier  race,  it  is  the  same  tyrannical 
principle.  I  was  glad  to  express  my  gratitude  at  Quincy,  and  I  re-express  it 
here,  to  Judge  Douglas,  —  that  he  looks  to  no  end  of  the  instittdion  of  slavery. 
That  will  help  the  people  to  see  where  the  struggle  really  is.  It  will  hereafter 
place  with  us  all  men  who  really  do  wish  the  wrong  may  have  an  end.  And 
whenever  we  can  get  rid  of  the  fog  which  obscures  the  real  question,  when  we 
can  get  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  to  avow  a  policy  looking  to  its  perpetu- 
ation, —  we  can  get  out  from  among  that  class  of  men  and  bring  them  to  the 
side  of  those  who  treat  it  as  a  wrong.  Then  there  will  soon  be  an  end  of  it, 
and  that  end  will  be  its  "  ultimate  extinction."  Whenever  the  issue  can  be 
distinctly  made,  and  all  extraneous  matter  thrown  out  so  that  men  can  fairly 
seethe  real  difference  between  the  parties,  this  controversy  will  soon  be  settled, 
and  it  will  be  done  peaceably  too.  There  will  be  no  war,  no  violence.  It  will 
be  placed  again  where  the  wisest  and  best  men  of  the  world  placed  it.  Brooks 
of  South  Carolina  once  declared  that  when  this  Constitution  was  framed,  its 
framers  did  not  look  to  the  institution  existing  until  this  day.  When  he  said 
this,  I  think  he  stated  a  fact  that  is  fully  borne  out  by  tlie  history  of  the  times. 
But  he  also  said  they  were  better  and  wiser  men  than  tlie  men  of  these  days  ; 
yet  the  men  of  tliese  days  had  experience  which  they  had  not,  and  by  the 
invention  of  the  cotton-gin  it  became  a  necessity  in  this  country  that  slavery 
should  be  perpetual  I  now  say  that,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  purposely  or 
without  purpose,  Judge  Douglas  has  been  the  most  prominent  instrument  in 
changing  the  position  of  the  institution  of  slavery  which  the  fathers  of  the 
government  expected  to  come  to  an  end  ere  this,  —  and  putting  it  npon  Brooks's 
cotton-gin  basis  ;  placing  it  where  he  openly  confesses  he  has  no  desire  there 
shall  ever  be  an  end  of  it. 

I  understand  I  have  ten  minutes  yet.  I  will  employ  it  in  saying  some- 
thing about  this  argument  Judge  Douglas  uses,  while  he  sustains  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  can  still  somehow  exclude 
slavery.  The  first  thing  I  ask  attention  to  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas 
constantly  said,  before  the  decision,  that  whether  they  could  or  not,  was  a 
question  for  the  Supreyne  Court.  But  after  the  court  has  made  the  decision  he 
virtually  says  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court,  but  for  the  people. 
And  how  is  it  he  tells  us  they  can  exclude  it  ?  He  says  it  needs  "  police 
regulations,"  and  that  admits  of  "  unfriendly  legislation."  Although  it  is  a 
right  established  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  take  a  slave  into 
a  Territory  of  the  United  States  and  hold  him  as  property,  yet  unless  the 
Territorial  Legislature  will  give  friendly  legislation,  and,  more  especially,  if 
they  adopt  unfriendly  legislation,  they  can  practically  exclude  him.  Xow, 
without  meeting  this  proposition  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  pass  to  consider  the 
real  constitutional  obligation.  Let  me  take  the  gentleman  who  looks  me  in 
the  face  before  me,  and  let  us  suppose  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  Territorial 
Legislature.  The  first  thing  he  will  do  will  be  to  swear  that  he  will  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  His  neighbor  by  his  side  in  the  Terri- 
tory has  slaves  and  needs  Territorial  legislation  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  that 
constitutional  right.  Can  he  withhold  the  legislation  which  his  neighbor  needs 
for  the  enjoyment  of  a  right  which  is  fixed  in  his  favor  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  which  he  has  sworn  to  support  ?  Can  he  withhold  it  with- 
out violating  his  oath  ?  And,  more  especially,  can  he  pass  unfriendly  legis- 
lation to  violate  his  oath  ?  Why,  this  is  a  monstrous  sort  of  talk  about  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States !     Thei^e  has  never  been  as  outlandish  or 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  277 

Imvlcss  a  doctrine  from  the  mouth  of  any  respectable  man  on  earth.  I  do  not 
believe  it  is  a  constitutional  right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  Territory  of  the  United 
States.  I  believe  the  decision  was  improperly  made  and  I  go  for  reversing  it. 
Judge  Douglas  is  furious  against  those  who  go  for  reversing  a  decision.  But 
he  is  for  legislating  it  out  of  all  force  while  the  law  itself  stands.  I  repeat 
that  there  has  never  been  so  monstrous  a  doctrine  uttered  from  the  mouth  of  a 
respectable  man. 

I  suppose  most  of  us  (I  know  it  of  myself)  believe  that  the  people  of  the 
Southern  States  are  entitled  to  a  Congressional  Fugitive  Slave  law,  —  that  is 
a  right  fixed  in  the  Constitution.  But  it  cannot  be  made  available  to  them 
without  Congressional  legislation.  In  the  Judge's  language,  it  is  a  "  barren 
right,"  which  needs  legislation  before  it  can  become  efhcient  and  valuable  to 
the  persons  to  whom  it  is  guaranteed.  And  as  the  right  is  constitutional,  I 
agree  that  the  legislation  shall  be  granted  to  it,  —  and  that  not  that  we  like 
the  institution  of  slavery.  We  profess  to  have  no  taste  for  running  and  catch- 
ing niggers,  —  at  least,  I  profess  no  taste  for  that  job  at  all.  Why  then  do  I 
yield  support  to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law  ?  Because  I  do  not  understand  that 
the  Constitution,  which  guarantees  that  right,  can  be  supported  without  it. 
And  if  I  believed  that  the  right  to  hold  a  slave  in  a  Territory  was  equally 
fixed  in  the  Constitution  with  the  right  to  reclaim  fugitives,  I  sliould  be  bound 
to  give  it  the  legislation  necessary  to  support  it.  I  say  that  no  man  can  deny 
his  obligation  to  give  the  necessary  legislation  to  support  slavery  in  a  Terri- 
tory, who  believes  it  is  a  constitutional  right  to  have  it  there.  No  man  can, 
who  does  not  give  the  Abolitionists  an  argument  to  deny  the  obligation  enjoined 
by  the  Constitution  to  enact  a  Fugitive  State  law.  Try  it  now.  It  is  the 
strongest  Abolition  argument  ever  made.  I  say  if  that  Dred  Scott  decision 
is  correct,  then  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  Territory  is  equally  a  constitu- 
tional right  witli  the  right  of  a  slaveholder  to  have  his  runaway  returned.  No 
one  can  show  the  distinction  between  them.  The  one  is  express,  so  that  we 
cannot  deny  it.  The  other  is  construed  to  be  in  the  Constitution,  so  that  he 
who  believes  the  decision  to  be  correct  believes  in  the  right.  And  the  man 
who  argues  that  by  unfriendly  legislation,  in  spite  of  that  constitutional  right, 
slavery  may  be  driven  from  the  Territories,  cannot  avoid  furnishing  an  argu- 
ment by  which  Abolitionists  may  deny  the  obligation  to  return  fugitives,  and 
claim  the  power  to  pass  laws  unfriendly  to  the  right  of  the  slaveholder  to 
reclaim  his  fugitive.  I  do  not  know  how  such  an  argument  may  strike  a 
popular  assembly  like  this,  but  I  defy  anybody  to  go  before  a  body  of  men 
whose  minds  are  educated  to  estimating  evidence  and  reasoning,  and  show  that 
there  is  an  iota  of  difference  between  the  constitutional  right  to  reclaim  a 
fugitive,  and  the  constitutional  right  to  hold  a  slave,  in  a  Territory,  provided 
this  Dred  Scott  decision  is  correct.  I  defy  any  man  to  make  an  argument 
that  will  justify  unfriendly  legislation  to  deprive  a  slaveholder  of  his  right  to 
hold  his  slave  in  a  Territory,  that  will  not  equally,  in  all  its  length,  breadth, 
and  thickness,  furnish  an  argument  for  nullifying  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
Why,  there  is  not  such  an  Abolitionist  in  the  nation  as  Douglas,  after  all. 


278  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 


MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REPLY. 

Me.  Lincoln  has  concluded  his  remarks  by  saying  that  there  is  not  such  an 
Abolitionist  as  I  am  in  all  America.  If  he  could  make  the  Abolitionists  of 
Illinois  believe  that,  he  would  not  have  much  show  for  the  Senate.  Let  him 
make  the  Abolitionists  believe  the  truth  of  that  statement,  and  his  political 
back  is  broken. 

His  first  criticism  upon  me  is  the  expression  of  his  hope  that  the  war  of 
the  Administration  will  be  prosecuted  against  me  and  the  Democratic  party 
of  this  State  with  vigor.  He  wants  that  war  prosecuted  with  vigor ;  I  have 
no  doubt  of  it.  His  hopes  of  success  and  the  hopes  of  his  party  depend  solely 
upon  it.  They  have  no  chance  of  destroying  the  Democracy  of  this  State 
except  by  the  aid  of  Federal  patronage.  He  has  all  the  Federal  office-hohlers 
here  as  his  allies,  running  separate  tickets  against  the  Democracy  to  divide 
the  party,  although  the  leaders  all  intend  to  vote  directly  the  Abolition  ticket, 
and  only  leave  the  greenhorns  to  vote  this  separate  ticket  who  refuse  to  go  into 
the  Abolition  camp.  There  is  sometliing  really  refreshing  in  the  thought  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  in  favor  of  prosecuting  one  war  vigorously.  It  is  the  first  war 
I  ever  knew  him  to  be  in  favor  of  prosecuting.  It  is  the  first  war  tliat  I  ever 
knew  him  to  believe  to  be  just  or  constitutional.  When  the  Mexican  war 
was  being  waged,  and  the  American  army  was  surrounded  by  the  enemy  in 
Mexico,  he  tliought  that  war  was  unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and  unjust. 
He  thought  it  was  not  commenced  on  the  right  spot. 

When  I  made  an  incidental  allusion  of  that  kind  in  the  joint  discussion 
over  at  Charleston  some  weeks  ago,  Lincoln,  in  replying,  said  that  I,  Douglas, 
had  charged  him  with  voting  against  supplies  for  the  Mexican  war,  and  then 
he  reared  up,  full  length,  and  swore  that  he  never  voted  against  the  supplies ; 
that  it  was  a  slander ;  and  caught  hold  of  Ficklin,  who  sat  on  the  stand,  and 
said,  "  Here,  Ficklin,  tell  the  people  that  it  is  a  lie."  Well,  Ficklin,  who  had 
served  in  Congress  with  him,  stood  up  and  told  them  all  that  he  recollected 
about  it.  It  was  that  when  George  Ashmun,  of  Massachusetts,  brought  for- 
ward a  resolution  declaring  the  war  unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and  unjust, 
that  Lincoln  had  voted  for  it.  "  Yes,"  said  Lincoln,  "  I  did."  Thus  he  con- 
fessed that  he  voted  that  the  war  was  wrong,  that  our  country  was  in  the 
w^rong,  and  consequently  tliat  the  Mexicans  were  in  the  right ;  but  charged 
that  I  had  slandered  him  by  saying  that  he  voted  against  the  supplies.  I 
never  charged  him  with  voting  against  the  supplies  in  my  life,  because  I  knew 
that  he  was  not  in  Congress  when  they  were  voted.  The  war  was  commenced 
on  the  13th  day  of  May,  1846,  and  on  that  day  we  appropriated  in  Congress 
ten  millions  of  dollars  and  fifty  thousand  men  to  prosecute  it.  During  the 
same  session  we  voted  more  men  and  more  money,  and  at  the  next  session  we 
voted  more  men  and  more  money,  so  that  by  the  time  Mr.  Lincoln  entered 
Congress  we  had  enough  men  and  enough  money  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  had 
no  occasion  to  vote  for  any  more.  When  he  got  into  the  House,  being  opposed 
to  the  war,  and  not  being  able  to  stop  the  supplies,  because  they  had  all  gone 
forward,  all  he  could  do  was  to  follow  the  lead  of  Corwin,  and  prove  that  the 
war  was  not  begun  on  the  right  spot,  and  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  unneces- 
sary, and  wrong.  Eemember,  too,  that  this  he  did  after  the  war  had  been  begun. 
It  is  one  thing  to  be  opposed  to  the  declaration  of  a  war,  another  and  very 
different  thing  to  take  sides  with  the  enemy  against  your  own  country  after 
the  war  has  been  commenced.  Our  army  was  in  Mexico  at  the  time,  many 
battles  had  been  fought ;  our  citizens,  who  were  defending  the  honor  of  theit 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  279 

country's  flag,  were  surrounaed  by  the  daggers,  the  guns,  and  the  poison  of  the 
enemy.  Then  it  was  that  Corwin  made  his  speech  in  which  he  declared  tliat 
the  American  soldiers  ought  to  be  welcomed  by  the  Mexicans  with  bloody 
hands  and  hospitable  graves;  then  it  was  that  Ashmun  and  Lincoln  voted  in 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives  that  the  war  was  unconstitutional  and  unjust ; 
and  Ashmun's  resolution,  Corwin's  speech,  and  Lincoln's  vote  were  sent  to 
Mexico  and  read  at  the  head  of  the  Mexican  army,  to  prove  to  them  that 
there  was  a  Mexican  party  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  who  were 
doing  all  in  their  power  to  aid  them.  That  a  man  who  takes  sides  with  the 
common  enemy  against  his  own  country  in  time  of  war  should  rejoice  in  a 
war  being  made  on  me  now,  is  very  natural.  And,  in  my  opinion,  no  other 
kind  of  a  man  would  rejoice  in  it. 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  told  you  a  great  deal  to-day  about  his  being  an  old  line 
Clay  Whig.  Bear  in  mind  that  there  are  a  great  many  old  Clay  Whigs  down 
in  this  region.  It  is  more  agreeable,  therefore,  for  him  to  talk  about  the  old 
Clay  Whi^'  party  than  it  is  for  him  to  talk  Abolitionism.  We  did  not  hear 
much  about  the  old  Clay  Whig  party  up  in  the  Abolition  districts.  How 
much  of  an  old  line  Henry  Clay  Whig  was  he  ?  Have  you  read  General 
Singleton's  speech  at  Jacksonville  ?  You  know  that  General  Singleton  was 
for  twenty-five  years  the  confidential  friend  of  Henry  Clay  in  Illinois,  and  he 
testified  that  in  1847,  when  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  this  State  was 
in  session,  the  Whig  nrembers  were  invited  to  a  Whig  caucus  at  the  house  of 
Mr.  Lincoln's  brother-in-law,  where  Mr.  Lincoln  proposed  to  throw  Henry 
Clay  overboard  and  take  up  General  Taylor  in  his  place,  giving  as  his  reason 
that  if  the  Whigs  did  not  take  up  General  Taylor,  the  Democrats  would. 
Singleton  testifies  that  Lincoln  in  that  speech  urged  as  another  reason  for 
throwing  Henry  Clay  overboard,  that  the  Whigs  had  fought  long  enough  for 
principle,  and  ought  to  begin  to  fight  for  success.  Singleton  also  testifies  that 
Lincoln's  speech  did  have  the  effect  of  cutting  Clay's  throat,  and  that  he 
(Singleton)  and  others  withdrew  from  the  caucus  in  indignation.  He  further 
states  that  when  they  got  to  Philadelphia  to  attend  the  National  Convention 
of  the  Whig  party,  that  Lincoln  was  tliere,  the  bitter  and  deadly  enemy  of 
Clay,  and  that  he  tried  to  keep  him  (Singleton)  out  of  the  Convention  because 
he  insisted  on  voting  for  Clay,  and  Lincoln  was  determined  to  have  Taylor. 
Singleton  says  that  Lincoln  rejoiced  with  very  great  joy  when  he  found  the 
mangled  remains  of  the  murdered  Whig  statesman  lying  cold  before  him. 
Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  that  he  is  an  old  line  Clay  Whig  !  General 
Singleton  testifies  to  the  facts  I  have  narrated,  in  a  public  speech  which  has 
been  printed  and  circulated  broadcast  over  the  State  for  weeks,  yet  not  a  lisp 
have  we  heard  from  Mr.  Lincoln  on  the  subject,  except  that  he  is  an  old  Clay 
Whig. 

What  part  of  Henry  Clay's  policy  did  Lincoln  ever  advocate  ?  He  was  in 
Congress  in  1848-9,  when  the  Wilmot  Proviso  warfare  disturbed  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  country,  until  it  shook  the  foundation  of  the  Eepublic  from  its 
centre  to  its  circumference.  It  was  that  agitation  that  brought  Clay  forth  from 
his  retirement  at  Ashland  again  to.  occupy  his  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  to  see  if  he  could  not,  by  his  great  wisdom  and  experience,  and  the 
renown  of  his  name,  do  something  to  restore  peace  and  quiet  to  a  disturbed 
country.  Who  got  up  that  sectional  strife  that  Clay  had  to  be  called  upon  to 
quell  ?  I  have  heard  Lincoln  boast  that  he  voted  forty-two  times  for  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  and  that  he  would  have  voted  as  many  times  more  if  he 
could.     Lincoln  is  the  man,  in  connection  with  Seward,  Chase,  Giddings,  and 


280  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

other  Abolitionists,  who  got  up  that  strife  that  I  helped  Clay  to  put  down. 
Henry  Clay  came  back  to  the  Senate  in  1849,  and  saw  that  he  must  do  some- 
thing to  restore  peace  to  the  country.  The  Union  Whigs  and  the  Union 
Democrats  welcomed  him,  the  moment  he  arrived,  as  the  man  for  the  occa- 
sion. We  believed  that  he,  of  all  men  on  earth,  had  been  preserved  by  Divine 
Providence  to  guide  us  out  of  our  difficulties,  and  we  Democrats  rallied  under 
Clay  then,  as  you  Whigs  in  Nullification  time  rallied  under  the  banner  of  old 
Jackson,  foi'getting  party  when  the  country  was  in  danger,  in  order  that  we 
might  have  a  country  first,  and  parties  afterward. 

And  this  reminds  me  that  Mv.  Lincoln  told  you  that  the  slavery  question 
was  the  only  thing  that  ever  disturbed  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union. 
Did  not  Nullification  once  raise  its  head  and  disturb  the  peace  of  this  Union 
in  1832  ?  Was  that  the  slavery  question,  Mr.  Lincoln  ?  Did  not  disunion 
raise  its  monster  head  during  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain  ?  Was  that  the 
slavery  question,  Mr.  Lincoln  ?  The  peace  of  this  country  has  been  disturbed 
three  times,  once  during  the  war  with  Great  Britain,  once  on  the  tariff  ques- 
tion, and  once  on  the  slavery  question.  His  argument,  therefore,  that  slavery 
is  the  only  question  that  has  ever  created  dissension  in  the  Union  falls  to  the 
ground.  It  is  true  that  agitators  are  enabled  now  to  use  this  slavery  question 
for  the  purpose  of  sectional  strife.  He  admits  that  in  regard  to  all  things  else, 
the  principle  that  I  advocate,  making  each  State  and  Territory  free  to  decide  for 
itself,  ought  to  prevail.  He  instances  the  cranberry  laws  and  the  oyster  laws,  and 
he  might  have  gone  through  the  w^hole  list  with  the  same  effect.  I  say  that 
all  these  laws  are  local  and  domestic,  and  that  local  and  domestic  concerns 
should  be  left  to  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  manage  for  itself.  If 
agitators  would  acquiesce  in  that  principle,  there  never  would  be  any  danger 
to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  Lincoln  tries  to  avoid  the  main  issue  by  attacking  the  truth  of  my  prop- 
osition, that  our  fathers  made  this  government  divided  into  Free  and  Slave 
States,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  to  decide  all  its  local  questions  for  itself. 
Did  they  not  thus  make  it  ?  It  is  true  that  they  did  not  establish  slavery  in 
any  of  the  States,  or  abolish  it  in  any  of  them ;  but  finding  thirteen  States, 
twelve  of  which  were  slave  and  one  free,  they  agreed  to  form  a  government 
unitino-  them  toirether  as  thev  stood,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  and  to 
guarantee  forever  to  each  State  the  right  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  slavery 
question.  Having  thus  made  the  government,  and  conferred  this  right  upon 
each  State  forever,  I  assert  that  this  government  can  exist  as  they  made  it, 
divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  if  any  one  State  chooses  to  retain  slavery. 
He  says  that  he  looks  forward  to  a  time  when  slavery  shall  be  abolished  every- 
where. I  look  forward  to  a  time  when  each  State  shall  be  allowed  to  do  as  it 
pleases.  If  it  chooses  to  keep  slavery  forever,  it  is  not  my  business,  but  its  own ; 
if  it  chooses  to  abolish  slavery,  it  is  its  own  business,  —  not  mine.  I  care  more 
for  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  the  right  of  the  people  to  rule,  than 
I  do  for  all  the  negroes  in  Christendom.  I  would  not  endanger  the  perpetuity 
of  this  Union,  I  would  not  blot  out  the  great  inalienable  rights  of  the  white 
men,  for  all  the  negroes  that  ever  existed.  Hence,  I  say,  let  us  maintain  this 
government  on  the  principles  that  our  fathers  made  it,  recognizing  the  right 
of  each  State  to  keep  slavery  as  long  as  its  people  determine,  or  to  abolish  it 
when  they  please.  But  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  when  our  fathers  made  this 
government  they  did  not  look  forward  to  the  state  of  things  now  existing, 
and  therefore  he  thinks  the  doctrine  was  wrong ;  and  he  quotes  Brooks  of 
South  Carolina  to  prove  that  our  fathers  then  thought  that  probably  slavery 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  281 

would  be  abolished  by  each  State  acting  for  itself  before  this  time.  Suppose 
they  did  ;  suppose  they  did  not  foresee  what  has  occurred,  —  does  that  change 
the  principles  of  our  government  ?  They  did  not  probably  foresee  the  tele- 
graph that  transmits  intelligence  by  lightning,  nor  did  they  foresee  the  rail- 
roads that  now  form  the  bonds  of  union  between  the  different  States,  or  the 
thousand  mechanical  inventions  that  have  elevated  mankind.  But  do  these 
things  change  the  principles  of  the  government  ?  Our  fathers,  I  say,  made 
this  government  on  the  principle  of  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleases 
in  its  own  domestic  affairs,  subject  to  the  Constitution,  and  allowed  the 
people  of  each  to  apply  to  every  new  change  of  circumstances  such  remedy 
as  they  may  see  fit  to  improve  their  condition.  This  right  they  have  for  all 
time  to  come. 

Mr.  Lincoln  went  on  to  tell  you  tliat  he  does  not  at  all  desire  to  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  nor  does  his  party.     I  expected 
him  to  say  that  down  here.     Let  me  ask  him,  then,  how  he  expects  to  put 
slavery  in  the  course   of   ultimate   extinction   everywhere,  if   he   does    not 
intend  to  interfere  with  it  in  the  States  where  it  exists  ?     He  says  that  he  will 
prohibit  it  in  all  Territories,  and  the  inference  is,  then,  that  unless  they  make 
Free  States  out  of  them  he  will  keep  them  out  of  the  Union ;  for,  mark  you, 
he  did  not  say  whether  or  not  he  would  vote  to  admit  Kansas  with  slavery  or 
not,  as  her  people  might  apply  (he  forgot  that,  as  usual,  etc.)  ;  he  did  not  say 
whether  or  not  he  was  in  favor  of  bringing  the  Territories  now  in  existence 
into  the   Union  on  the   principle  of  Clay's    Compromise  Measures    on   the 
slavery  question.     I  told   you  that  he  would  not.      His  idea  is  that  he  will 
prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  Territories,  and  thus  force  them  all  to  become  Free 
States,  surrounding  the  Slave  States  with  a  cordon  of  Free  States,  and  hem- 
ming them  in,  keeping  the  slaves  confined  to  their  present  limits  whilst  they 
go  on  multiplying,  until  the  soil  on  which  they  live  will  no  longer  feed  them, 
and  he  will  thus  be  able  to  put  slavery  in  a  course  of  ultimate  extinction  by 
starvation.     He  will  extinguish  slavery  in  the  Southern  States  as  the  French 
general    exterminated    the  Algerines    when    he   smoked    them    out.      He    is 
going  to  extinguish  slavery  by  surrounding  the  Slave  States,  hemming  in  the 
slaves,  and  starving  them  out  of  existence,  as  you  smoke  a  fox  out  of  his 
hole.     He  intends  to  do  that  in  the  name  of  liumanity  and  Christianity,  in 
order  that  we  may  get  rid  of  the  terrible  crime  and  sin  entailed  upon  our 
fathers  of  holding  slaves.     Mr.  Lincoln  makes  out  that  line  of  policy,  and 
appeals  to  the  moral  sense  of  justice  and  to  the  Christian  feeling  of  the  com- 
munity to  sustain  him.     He  says  that  any  man  who  holds  to  the  contrary 
doctrine  is  in  the  position  of  the  king  who  claimed  to  govern  by  divine  right. 
Let  us  examine  for  a  moment  and  see  what  principle  it  was  that  overthrew 
the  divine  right  of  George  the  Third  to  govern  us.     Did  not  these  Colonies 
rebel  because  the  British  Parliament  had  no  right  to  pass  laws  concerning  our 
property  and  domestic  and  private  institutions  without  our  consent  ?      We 
demanded  that  the  British  Government  should  not  pass  such  laws  unless  they 
gave   us   representation   in   the  body  passing  them  ;    and    this  the  British 
Government  insisting  on  doing,  we  went  to  war,  on  the  principle  that  the 
Home  Government  should  not  control   and  govern  distant  colonies  without 
giving   them    a    representation.     Now,  Mr.  Lincoln    proposes   to  govern  the 
Territories  without  giving  them  a  representation,  and   calls  on   Congress  to 
pass   laws    controlling    their  property  and  domestic    concerns  without    their 
consent  and  against  their  will.     Thus,  he  asserts  for  his  party  the  identical 
principle  asserted  by  George  III.  and  the  Tories  of  the  Ke volution. 

36 


282  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

I  ask  you  to  look  into  these  things,  and  then  tell  me  whether  the  Democ- 
racy or  the  Abolitionists  are  right.  I  hold  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like 
those  of  a  State  (I  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  Letter  of  Accept- 
ance), have  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  sliall 
not  exist  within  their  limits.  The  point  upon  which  Chief  Justice  Taney 
expresses  his  opinion  is  simply  this,  that  slaves,  being  property,  stand  on  an 
equal  footing  with  other  property,  and  consequently  that  the  owner  has  the 
same  right  to  carry  tliat  property  into  a  Territory  that  he  has  any  other,  sub- 
ject to  the  same  conditions.  Suppose  that  one  of  your  merchants  was  to  take 
fifty  or  one  hundred  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  liquors  to  Kansas.  He  has  a 
right  to  go  there,  under  that  decision;  but  when  he  gets  there  he  finds  the 
Maine  liquor  law  in  force,  and  what  can  he  do  with  his  property  after  he  gets 
it  there  ?  He  cannot  sell  it,  he  cannot  use  it ;  it  is  subject  to  the  local  law, 
and  that  law  is  against  him,  and  the  best  thing  he  can  do  with  it  is  to  bring  it 
back  into  Missouri  or  Illinois  and  sell  it.  If  you  take  negroes  to  Kansas,  as 
Colonel  Jefferson  Davis  said  in  his  Bangor  speech,  from  which  1  have  quoted 
to-day,  you  must  take  them  there  subject  to  the  local  law.  If  the  people 
want  the  institution  of  slavery,  they  will  protect  and  encourage  it ;  but  if  they 
do  not  want  it,  they  will  withhold  that  protection,  and  the  absence  of  local 
legislation  protecting  slavery  excludes  it  as  completely  as  a  positive  prohibi- 
tion. You  slaveholders  of  Missouri  might  as  well  understand  what  you  know 
practically,  that  you  cannot  carry  slavery  where  the  people  do  not  want  it. 
All  you  have  a  right  to  ask  is  that  the  people  shall  do  as  they  please :  if  they 
want  slavery,  let  them  have  it ;  if  they  do  not  want  it,  allow  them  to  refuse  to 
encourage  it. 

My  friends,  if,  as  I  have  said  before,  we  will  only  live  up  to  this  great  fun- 
damental principle,  there  will  be  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South. 
Mr.  Lincoln  admits  that,  under  the  Constitution,  on  all  domestic  questions, 
except  slavery,  we  ought  not  to  interfere  with  the  people  of  each  State. 
What  right  have  we  to  interfere  w-ith  slavery  any  more  than  we  have  to  inter- 
fere with  any  other  question  ?  He  says  that  this  slavery  question  is  now  the 
bone  of  contention.  Why  ?  Simply  because  agitators  have  combined  in  all 
the  Free  States  to  make  war  upon  it.  Suppose  the  agitators  in  the  States 
should  combine  in  one  half  of  the  Union  to  make  war  upon  the  railroad 
system  of  the  other  half  ?  They  would  thus  be  driven  to  the  same  sectional 
strife.  Suppose  one  section  makes  war  upon  any  other  peculiar  institution  of 
the  opposite  section,  and  the  same  strife  is  produced.  The  only  remedy  and 
safety  is  that  we  shall  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made  it,  obey 
the  laws  as  they  are  passed,  while  they  stand  the  proper  test,  and  sustain  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  constituted  authorities. 


AND    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  283 

SPEECH   OF   HON.   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN, 

At  Columbus,  Ohio,  September,   1859. 

Fellow-Citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio  :  I  cannot  fail  to  remember 
that  I  appear  for  the  first  time  before  an  audience  in  this  now  great  State,  — 
an  audience  that  is  accustomed  to  hear  such  speakers  as  Corwin,  and  Chase, 
and  Wade,  and  many  other  renowned  men ;  and,  remembering  this,  I  feel  that 
it  will  be  well  for  you,  as  for  me,  that  you  should  not  raise  your  expectations 
to  that  standard  to  which  you  would  have  been  justified  in  raising  them  had 
one  of  these  distinguished  men  appeared  before  you.  You  would  perhaps  be 
only  preparing  a  disappointment  for  yourselves,  and,  as  a  consequence  of  your 
disappointment,  mortification  to  me.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  you  will  com- 
mence with  very  moderate  expectations  ;  and  perhaps,  if  you  will  give  me 
your  attention,  I  shall  be  able  to  interest  you  to  a  moderate  degree. 

Appearing  here  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  I  have  been  somewhat 
embarrassed  for  a  topic  by  way  of  introduction  to  my  speech  ;  but  I  have  been 
relieved  from  that  embarrassment  by  an  introduction  which  the  "  Ohio  States- 
man "  newspaper  gave  me  this  morning.  In  this  paper  I  have  read  an  article, 
in  which,  among  other  statements,  I  find  the  following  :  — 

"  In  debating  with  Senator  Douglas  during  the  memorable  contest  of  last  fall,  Mr. 
Lincoln  declared  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage,  and  attempted  to  defend  that  vile  concep- 
tion against  the  Little  Giant." 


-O"' 


I  mention  this  now,  at  the  opening  of  my  remarks,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  three  comments  upon  it.  The  first  I  have  already  announced,  —  it 
furnishes  me  an  introductory  topic ;  the  second  is  to  show  that  the  gentleman 
is  mistaken ;  thirdly,  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to  correct  it. 

In  the  first  place,  in  regard  to  this  matter  being  a  mistake.  I  have  found 
that  it  is  not  entirely  safe,  when  one  is  misrepresented  under  his  very  nose,  to 
allow  the  misrepresentation  to  go  uncontradicted.  I  therefore  propose,  here 
at  the  outset,  not  only  to  say  that  this  is  a  misrepresentation,  but  to  show  con- 
clusively that  it  is  so ;  and  you  will  bear  with  me  while  I  read  a  couple  of 
extracts  from  that  very  "  memorable  "  debate  with  Judge  Douglas  last  year,  to 
which  tliis  newspaper  refers.  In  the  first  pitched  battle  which  Senator 
Douglas  and  myself  had,  at  the  town  of  Ottawa,  I  used  the  language  which  I 
will  now  read.  Having  been  previously  reading  an  extract,  I  continued  as 
follows :  — 

"  Now,  gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  read  at  any  greater  length,  but  this  is  the  true 
complexion  of  all  I  have  ever  said  in  regard  to  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the 
black  race.  This  is  the  whole  of  it;  and  anything  that  argues  me  into  his  idea  of 
perfect  social  and  political  equality  with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastic 
arrangement  of  words,  by  which  a  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut 
horse.  I  will  say  here,  while  upon  this  subject,  that  I  have  no  purpose  directly  or 
indirectly  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists. 
I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so.  I  have 
no  purpose  to  introduce  political  and  social  equality  between  the  white  and  the  black 
races.  There  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  two  which,  in  my  judgment,  will 
probably  forbid  their  ever  living  together  upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality  ;  and 
inasmuch  as  it  becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I,  as  well  as  Judge 


284  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  liaving  the  superior  position. 
I  have  never  said  anything  to  the  contrary,  but  I  hold  that,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  wliy  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to  all  the  natural  rights 
enumerated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  —  tlie  rigid  to  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  liappiness.  I  hold  that  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  these  as  the  white  man. 
I  agree  with  Judge  Douglas,  he  is  not  mj'  equal  in  many  respects,  —  certainly  not  in 
color,  perhaps  not  in  moral  or  intellectual  endowments.  But  in  the  right  to  eat  the 
bread,  without  leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand  earns,  he,  is  my  equal,  and 
the  equal  of  Judge  Dotiglas,  and  the  equal  of  every  living  many 

Upon  a  subsequent  occasion,  when  the  reason  for  making  a  statement  like 
this  recurred,  I  said  :  — 

"  While  I  was  at  the  hotel  to-day  an  elderly  gentleman  called  upon  me  to  know 
whether  I  was  really  in  favor  of  producing  perfect  equality  between  the  negroes  and 
white  people.      While  I  had  not  proposed  to  myself  on  this  occasion  to  say  much  on 
that  subject,  yet,  as  the  question  was  asked  me,  I  thought  I  would  occupy  perhaps  five 
minutes  in  saying  something  in  regard  to  it.     I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever 
have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  and  political  equality  of 
the  white  and  black  races ;  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,   in  favor  of  making 
voters  or  jurors  of  negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  ofiice,  or  intermarry  with 
the  white  people  ;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to  this  that  there  is  a  physical  difference 
between  the  white  and  black  races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races 
living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  political  equality.     And  inasmuch  as  they  can- 
not so  live,  while  they  do  remain  together  there  must  be  the  position  of  superior  and 
inferior,  and  I,  as  much  as  any  other  man,  am  in  favor  of  having  the  superior  position 
assigned  to  the  white  race.     1  say  upon  this  occasion  I  do  not  perceive  that  because 
the  white  man  is  to  have  the  superior  position,  the  negro  should  be  denied  everything. 
I  do  not  understand  that  because  I  do  not  want  a  negro  woman  for  a  slave,  I  must 
necessarily  want  her  for  a  wife.     My  understanding  is  that  I  can  just  let  her  alone.     I 
am  now  in  my  fiftieth  year,  and  I  certainly  never  have  had  a  black  woman  for  either 
a  slave  or  a  wife.     So  it  seems  to  me  quite  possible  for  us  get  along  without  making 
either  slaves  or  wives  of  negroes.     I  will  add  to  this  that  I  have  never  seen,  to  my 
knowledge,  a  man,  woman,  or  child,  who  was  in  favor  of  producing  perfect  equalit}', 
social  and  political,  between  negroes  and  white  men.     I  recollect  of  but  one  distin- 
guished instance  that  I  ever  heard  of  so  frequently  as  to  be  satisfied  of  its  correctness, 
—  and  that  is  the  case  of  Judge  Douglas's  old  friend.  Colonel  Richard  M.  Johnson. 
I  will  also  add  to  the  remarks  I  have  made  (for  I  am  not  going  to  enter  at  large  upon 
this  subject),  that  I  have  never  had  the  least  apprehension  that  I  or  my  friends  would 
marry  negroes,  if  there  was  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it  ;  but  as  Judge  Douglas  and 
his  friends  seem  to  be  in  great  apprehension  that  they  miglit,  if  there  were  no  law  to 
keep  them  from  it,  I  give  liim  the  most  solemn  pledge  that  I  will  to  the  very  last  stand 
by  the  law  of  the  State  which  forbids  the  marrying  of  white  people  with  negroes." 

There,  my  friends,  you  have  briefly  what  I  have,  upon  former  occasions,  said 
upon  this  subject  to  which  this  newspaper,  to  the  extent  of  its  ability,  has  drawn 
the  public  attention.  In  it  you  not  only  perceive,  as  a  probability,  that  in  that 
contest  I  did  not  at  any  time  say  I  was  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage,  but  the 
absolute  proof  that  twice  —  once  substantially,  and  once  expressly  —  I  declared 
against  it.  Having  shown  you  this,  tliere  remains  but  a  word  of  comment 
upon  that  newspaper  article.  It  is  this  :  that  I  presume  the  editor  of  that 
paper  is  an  honest  and  truth-loving  man,  and  that  he  will  be  greatly  obliged  to 
me  for  furnishing  him  thus  early  an  opportunity  to  correct  the  misrepresenta- 
tion he  has  made,  before  it  has  run  so  long  that  malicious  people  can  call  hitn 
a  liar. 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  285 

The  Giant  himself  has  been  here  recently.  I  have  seen  a  brief  report  of 
his  speech.  If  it  were  otherwise  unpleasant  to  me  to  introduce  the  subject  of 
the  negro  as  a  topic  for  discussion,  I  might  be  somewhat  relieved  by  the  fact 
that  he  dealt  exclusively  in  that  subject  while  he  was  here.  I  shall,  therefore, 
without  much  hesitation  or  diffidence,  enter  upon  this  subject. 

The  American  people,  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1854,  found  the  African 
slave-trade  prohibited  by  a  law  of  Congress.  In  a  majority  of  the  States  of 
this  Union,  they  found  African  slavery,  or  any  other  sort  of  slavery,  prohibited 
by  State  constitutions.  They  also  found  a  law  existing,  supposed  to  be  valid, 
by  which  slavery  was  excluded  from  almost  all  the  territory  the  United  States 
then  owned.  This  was  the  condition  of  the  country,  with  reference  to  the 
institution  of  slavery,  on  the  first  of  January,  1854.  A  few  days  after  that,  a 
bill  was  introduced  into  Congress,  which  ran  through  its  regular  course  in 
the  two  branches  of  the  National  Legislature,  and  finally  passed  into  a  law  in 
the  month  of  May,  by  which  the  Act  of  Congress  prohibiting  slavery  from 
going  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  was  repealed.  In  connection 
with  the  law  itself,  and,  in  fact,  in  the  terms  of  the  law,  the  then  existing  pro- 
hibition was  not  only  repealed,  but  there  was  a  declaration  of  a  purpose  on  the 
part  of  Congress  never  thereafter  to  exercise  any  power  that  they  might  have, 
real  or  supposed,  to  prohibit  the  extension  or  spread  of  slavery.  This  was  a 
very  great  change  ;  for  the  law  thus  repealed  was  of  more  than  thirty  years' 
standing.  Following  rapidly  upon  the  heels  of  this  action  of  Congress,  a  deci- 
sion of  the  Supreme  Court  is  made,  by  which  it  is  declared  that  Congress,  if 
it  desires  to  prohibit  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  Territories,  lias  no  consti- 
tutional power  to  do  so.  Not  only  so,  but  that  decision  lays  down  principles 
which,  if  pushed  to  their  logical  conclusion,  —  I  say  pushed  to  their  logical 
conclusion,  —  would  decide  that  the  constitutions  of  Free  States,  forbidding 
slavery,  are  themselves  unconstitutional.  Mark  me,  I  do  not  say  the  Judge 
said  this,  and  let  no  man  say  I  affirm  tlie  Judge  used  these  words  ;  but  I  only 
say  it  is  my  opinion  that  what  they  did  say,  if  pressed  to  its  logical  conclusion, 
will  inevitably  result  thus. 

Looking  at  these  things,  the  Eepublican  party,  as  I  understand  its  principles 
and  policy,  believe  that  there  is  great  danger  of  the  institution  of  slavery  being- 
spread  out  and  extended  until  it  is  ultimately  made  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
States  of  this  Union ;  so  believing,  to  prevent  that  incidental  and  ultimate 
consummation  is  the  original  and  chief  purpose  of  the  Eepublican  organization. 
I  say  "  chief  purpose  "  of  the  Eepublican  organization ;  for  it  is  certaiidy  true 
that  if  the  National  House  shall  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Eepublicans,  they 
will  have  to  attend  to  all  the  other  matters  of  National  House-keeping,  as  well 
as  this.  The  chief  and  real  purpose  of  the  Eepublican  party  is  eminently  con- 
servative. It  proposes  nothing  save  and  except  to  restore  this  government 
to  its  original  tone  in  regard  to  this  element  of  slavery,  and  there  to  maintain 
it,  looking  for  no  further  change  in  reference  to  it  than  that  which  the  original 
framers  of  the  Government  themselves  expected  and  looked  forward  to. 

The  chief  danger  to  this  purpose  of  the  Eepublican  party  is  not  just  now 
the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  or  the  passage  of  a  Congressional  slave- 
code,  or  the  declaring  of  a  second  Dred  Scott  decision,  making  slavery  lawful  in 
all  the  States.  These  are  not  pressing  us  just  now.  They  are  not  quite  ready 
yet.  The  authors  of  these  measures  know  that  we  are  too  strong  for  them  ; 
but  they  will  be  upon  us  in  due  time,  and  we  will  be  grappling  with  them  hand 
to  hand,  if  they  are  not  now  headed  off'.  They  are  not  now  the  chief  danger 
to  the  purpose  of  the  Eepublican  organization  ;  but  the  most  imminent  danger 


286  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

that  now  threatens  that  purpose  is  that  insidious  Douglas  Popular  Sovereignty. 
This  is  the  miner  and  sapper.  While  it  does  not  propose  to  revive  the  African 
slave-trade,  nor  to  pass  a  slave-code,  nor  to  make  a  second  Dred  Scott  decision, 
it  is  preparing  us  for  the  onslaught  and  charge  of  these  ultimate  enemies  when 
they  shall  be  ready  to  come  on,  and  the  word  of  command  for  them  to  advance 
shall  be  given.  I  say  this  "  Douglas  Popular  Sovereignty ; "  for  there  is  a 
broad  distinction,  as  I  now  understand  it,  between  that  article  and  a  genuine 
Popular  Sovereignty. 

I  believe  there  is  a  genuine  popular  sovereignty.  I  think  a  definition  of 
"  genuine  popular  sovereignty,"  in  the  abstract,  would  be  about  this  :  That  each 
man  shall  do  precisely  as  he  pleases  with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things 
which  exclusively  concern  him.  Applied  to  government,  this  principle  would 
be,  that  a  general  government  shall  do  all  those  things  which  pertain  to  it,  and 
all  the  local  governments  shall  do  precisel}''  as  they  please  in  respect  to  those 
matters  which  exclusively  concern  them.  I  understand  that  this  government 
of  the  United  States,  under  which  we  live,  is  based  upon  this  principle ;  and 
I  am  misunderstood  if  it  is  supposed  that  I  have  any  war  to  make  upon 
that  principle. 

Now,  what  is  Judge  Douglas's  Popular  Sovereignty  ?  It  is,  as  a  principle, 
no  other  than  that,  if  one  man  chooses  to  make  a  slave  of  another  man, 
neither  that  other  man  nor  anybody  else  has  a  right  to  object.  Applied  in 
government,  as  he  seeks  to  apply  it,  it  is  this  :  If,  in  a  new  Territory  into 
which  a  few  people  are  beginning  to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  making  their 
homes,  they  choose  to  either  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  or  to  establish 
it  there,  however  one  or  the  other  may  affect  the  persons  to  be  enslaved,  or 
tlie  infinitely  greater  number  of  persons  who  are  afterward  to  inhabit  that 
Territory,  or  the  other  members  of  the  families  of  communities,  of  which  they 
are  but  an  incipient  member,  or  the  general  head  of  the  family  of  States  as 
parent  of  all,  —  however  their  action  may  affect  one  or  the  other  of  these, 
there  is  no  power  or  right  to  interfere.  That  is  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty 
applied. 

He  has  a  good  deal  of  trouble  with  popular  sovereignty.  His  explana- 
tions explanatory  of  explanations  explained  are  interminable.  The  most 
lengthy,  and,  as  I  suppose,  the  most  maturely  considered  of  his  long  series 
of  explanations  is  his  great  essay  in  "  Harper's  ]\Iagazine."  I  will  not  attempt 
to  enter  on  any  very  thorough  investigation  of  liis  argument  as  there  made 
and  presented.  I  will  nevertheless  occupy  a  good  portion  of  your  time  here 
in  drawing  your  attention  to  certain  points  in  it.  Such  of  you  as  may  have 
read  this  document  will  have  perceived  that  the  Judge,  early  in  the  document 
quotes  from  two  persons  as  belonging  to  the  Eepublican  party,  without  nam- 
ing them,  but  who  can  readily  be  recognized  as  being  Governor  Seward  of 
New  York  and  myself.  It  is  true  that  exactly  fifteen  months  ago  this  day,  I 
believe,  I  for  the  first  time  expressed  a  sentiment  upon  this  subject,  and  in 
such  a  manner  that  it  should  get  into  print,  that  the  public  might  see  it 
beyond  the  circle  of  my  hearers  ;  and  my  expression  of  it  at  that  time  is  tlie 
quotation  that  Judge  Douglas  makes.  He  has  not  made  the  quotation  with 
accuracy,  but  justice  to  him  requires  me  to  say  that  it  is  sufficiently  accurate 
not  to  change  its  sense. 

The  sense  of  that  quotation  condensed  is  this :  that  this  slavery  element  is 
a  durable  element  of  discord  among  us,  and  that  we  shall  probably  not  have 
perfect  peace  in  this  country  with  it  until  it  either  masters  the  free  principle 
in  our  government,  or  is  so  far  mastered  by  the  free  principle  as  for  the  public 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  287 

mind  to  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  going  to  its  end.  This  sentiment,  which 
I  now  express  in  this  way,  was,  at  no  great  distance  of  time,  perhaps  in  differ- 
ent language,  and  in  connection  with  some  collateral  ideas,  expressed  by 
Governor  Seward.  Judge  Douglas  has  been  so  much  annoyed  by  the  expres- 
sion of  that  sentiment  tlmt  he  has  constantly,  I  believe,  in  almost  all  his 
speeches  since  it  was  uttered,  been  referring  to  it.  I  find  he  alluded  to  it 
in  his  speech  here,  as  well  as  in  the  copyright  essay.  I  do  not  now  enter 
upon  this  for  the  purpose  of  making  an  elaborate  argument  to  show  that  we 
were  right  in  the  expression  of  that  sentiment.  In  other  words,  I  shall  not 
stop  to  sa}^  all  that  might  properly  be  said  upon  this  point,  but  I  only  ask 
your  attention  to  it  for  the  purpose  of  making  one  or  two  points  upon  it. 

If  you  will  read  the  copyright  essay,  you  will  discover  that  Judge  Douglas 
himself  says  a  controversy  between  the  American  Colonies  and  the  Govern- 
ment of  Great  Britain  began  on  the  slavery  question  in  1699,  and  continued 
from  that  time  until  the  Revolution  ;  and,  while  he  did  not  say  so,  we  all 
know  that  it  has  continued  with  more  or  less  violence  ever  since  the 
Revolution. 

Then  we  need  not  appeal  to  history,  to  the  declarations  of  the  framers  of 
the  government,  but  we  know  from  Judge  Douglas  himself  that  slavery  began 
to  be  an  element  of  discord  among  the  white  people  of  this  country  as  far 
back  as  1699,  or  one  liundred  and  sixty  years  ago,  or  five  generations  of  men, 
—  counting  thirty  years  to  a  generation.  Now,  it  would  seem  to  me  that  it 
might  have  occurred  to  Judge  Douglas,  or  anybody  who  had  turned  his  atten- 
tion to  these  facts,  that  there  was  sometliing  in  the  nature  of  that  thing, 
slavery,  somewhat  durable  for  mischief  and  discord. 

There  is  another  point  I  desire  to  make  in  regard  to  this  matter,  before  I 
leave  it.  From  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  down  to  1820  is  the  precise 
period  of  our  history  when  we  had  comparative  peace  upon  this  question,  — 
the  precise  period  of  time  when  we  came  nearer  to  having  peace  about  it  than 
any  other  time  of  that  entire  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  in  which  he  says 
it  began,  or  of  the  eiglity  years  of  our  own  Constitution.  Then  it  would  be 
worth  our  while  to  stop  and  examine  into  the  probable  reason  of  our  coming 
nearer  to  having  peace  then  than  at  any  other  time.  This  was  the  precise 
period  of  time  in  which  our  fathers  adopted,  and  during  which  they  followed, 
a  policy  restricting  the  spread  of  slavery,  and  the  whole  Union  was  acquies- 
cing in  it.  The  whole  country  looked  forward  to  the  ultimate  extinction  of 
the  institution.  It  was  when  a  policy  had  been  adopted,  and  was  prevailing, 
which  led  all  just  and  right-minded  men  to  suppose  that  slavery  was  gradually 
coming  to  an  end,  and  that  they  might  be  quiet  about  it,  watching  it  as  it 
expired.  I  think  Judge  Douglas  might  have  perceived  that  too  ;  and  whether 
he  did  or  not,  it  is  worth  the  attention  of  lair-minded  men,  here  and  else- 
where, to  consider  whether  that  is  not  the  truth  of  the  case.  If  he  had 
looked  at  these  two  facts,  —  that  this  matter  has  been  an  element  of  discord 
for  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  among  this  people,  and  that  the  only  com- 
parative peace  we  have  had  about  it  was  when  that  policy  prevailed  in  this 
government,  which  he  now  wars  upon,  —  he  might  then,  perhaps,  have  been 
brought  to  a  more  just  appreciation  of  what  I  said  fifteen  months  ago,  —  that 
"  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  that  this  government 
cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the 
house  to  fall,  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  dissolve ;  but  I  do  expect  it  will 
cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either 
the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it 


288  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

where  the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ulti- 
mate extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  pusli  it  forward  until  it  shall  become 
alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 
That  was  my  sentiment  at  that  time.  In  connection  with  it,  I  said:  "We 
are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  inaugurated  with  the  avowed 
object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under 
the  operation  of  the  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has 
constantly  augmented."  I  now  say  to  you  here  that  we  are  advanced  still 
farther  into  the  sixth  year  since  that  policy  of  Judge  Douglas  —  that  Popular 
Sovereignty  of  his  —  for  quieting  the  slavery  question  was  made  the  national 
policy.  Fifteen  months  more  have  been  added  since  I  nttered  that  senti- 
ment ;  and  I  call  upon  you  and  all  other  right-minded  men  to  say  whether 
that  fifteen  months  have  belied  or  corroborated  my  words. 

While  I  am  here  upon  this  subject,  I  cannot  but  express  gratitude  that 
this  true  view  of  this  element  of  discord  among  us  —  as  I  believe  it  is  —  is 
attractinrf  more  and  more  attention.  I  do  not  believe  that  Governor  Seward 
nttered  that  sentiment  because  I  had  done  so  before,  but  because  he  reflected 
upon  this  subject  and  saw  the  truth  of  it,  Nor  do  I  believe,  because  Gov- 
ernor Seward  or  I  uttered  it,  that  Mr.  Hickman  of  Pennsylvania,  in  different 
language,  since  that  time,  has  declared  his  belief  in  the  utter  antagonism 
which  exists  between  tlie  principles  of  liberty  and  slavery.  You  see  we  are 
multiplying.  Now,  while  I  am  speaking  of  Hickman,  let  me  say,  I  know  but 
little  about  him.  I  have  never  seen  him,  and  know  scarcely  anything  about 
the  man  ;  but  I  will  say  this  much  of  him  :  Of  all  the  anti-Lecompton  Democ- 
racy that  have  been  brought  to  my  notice,  he  alone  has  the  true,  genuine 
ring  of  the  metal.  And  now,  without  indorsing  anything  else  he  has  said,  I 
will  ask  this  audience  to  give  three  cheers  for  Hickman.  [The  audience 
responded  with  three  rousing  cheers  for  Hickman.] 

Another  point  in  the  copyright  essay  to  which  I  would  ask  your  attention 
is  rather  a  feature  to  be  extracted  from  the  whole  thing,  than  from  any  express 
declaration  of  it  at  any  point.  It  is  a  general  feature  of  that  document,  and, 
indeed,  of  all  of  Judge  Douglas's  discussions  of  this  question,  that  the  Ter- 
ritories of  the  United  States  and  the  States  of  this  Union  are  exactlv  alike : 
that  there  is  no  difference  between  them  at  all ;  that  the  Constitution  applies 
to  the  Territories  precisely  as  it  does  to  the  States  ;  and  that  the  United  States 
Government,  under  the  Constitution,  may  not  do  in  a  State  what  it  may  not 
do  in  a  Territory,  and  what  it  must  do  in  a  State  it  must  do  in  a  Territory. 
Gentlemen,  is  that  a  true  view  of  the  case  ?  It  is  necessary  for  this  squatter 
sovereignty,  but  is  it  true  ? 

Let  us  consider.  What  does  it  depend  upon  ?  It  depends  altogether  upon 
the  proposition  that  the  States  must,  without  the  interference  of  the  General 
Government,  do  all  those  things  that  pertain  exclusively  to  themselves,  —  that 
are  local  in  their  nature,  that  have  no  connection  with  the  General  Govern- 
ment. After  Judge  Douglas  has  established  this  proposition,'  which  nobody 
disputes  or  ever  has  disputed,  he  proceeds  to  assume,  without  proving  it,  that 
slavery  is  one  of  those  little,  unimportant,  trivial  matters  which  are  of  just 
about  as  much  consequence  as  the  question  would  be  to  me  whether  my 
neighbor  should  raise  horned  cattle  or  plant  tobacco ;  that  there  is  no  moral 
question  about  it,  but  that  it  is  altogether  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents ;  that 
when  a  new  Territory  is  opened  for  settlement,  the  first  man  who  goes  into  it 
may  plant  there  a  thing  which,  like  the  Canada  thistle  or  some  other  of  those 
pests  of  the  soil,  cannot  be  dug  out  by  the  millions  of  men  who  will  come 


AND   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS.  289 

thereafter ;  that  it  is  one  of  those  little  things  that  is  so  trivial  in  its  nature  that 
it  has  no  effect  upon  anybody  save  the  few  men  who  first  plant  upon  the  soil ; 
that  it  is  not  a  thing  which  in  any  way  affects  the  family  of  communities  com- 
posing these  States,  nor  any  way  endangers  the  General  Government.  Judo-e 
Douglas  ignores  altogether  the  very  well  known  fact  that  we  have  never  had 
a  serious  menace  to  our  political  existence,  except  it  sprang  from  this  thinf, 
Mdiich  he  chooses  to  regard  as  only  upon  a  par  with  onions  and  potatoes. 

Turn  it,  and  contemplate  it  in  another  view.  He  says  that,  according  to 
his  Popular  Sovereignty,  the  General  Government  may  give  to  the  Territories 
governors,  judges,  marshals,  secretaries,  and  all  the  otlier  chief  men  to  govern 
them,  but  they  must  not  touch  upon  this  other  question.  Why  ?  The  ques- 
tion of  who  sliall  be  governor  of  a  Territory  for  a  year  or  two,  and  pass  away, 
without  his  track  being  left  upon  the  soil,  or  an  act  which  he  did  for  good  or 
for  evil  being  left  behind,  is  a  question  of  vast  national  magnitude ;  it  is  so 
much  opposed  in  its  nature  to  locality  that  the  nation  itself  must  decide  it : 
while  this  other  matter  of  planting  slavery  upon  a  soil,  —  a  thing  which,  once 
planted,  cannot  be  eradicated  by  the  succeeding  millions  who  have  as  much 
right  there  as  the  first  comers,  or,  if  eradicated,  not  without  infinite  difficulty 
and  a  long  struggle,  —  he  considers  the  power  to  prohibit  it  as  one  of  these 
little  local,  trivial  things  that  the  nation  ought  not  to  say  a  word  about ;  that 
it  affects  nobody  save  the  few  men  who  are  there. 

Take  these  two  things  and  consider  them  together,  present  the  question  of 
planting  a  State  with  the  institution  of  slavery  by  the  side  of  a  question  of 
who  shall  be  Governor  of  Kansas  for  a  year  or  two,  and  is  there  a  man  here, 
—  is  there  a  man  on  earth,  —  who  would  not  say  the  governor  question  is  the 
little  one,  and  the  slavery  question  is  the  great  one  ?  I  ask  any  honest  Demo- 
crat if  the  small,  the  local,  and  the  trivial  and  temporary  question  is  not,  Who 
shall  be  governor  ?  While  the  durable,  the  important,  and  the  mischievous 
one  is,  Shall  this  soil  be  planted  with  slavery  ? 

This  is  an  idea,  I  suppose,  which  has  arisen  in  Judge  Douglas's  mind  from 
his  peculiar  structure.  I  suppose  the  institution  of  slavery  really  looks  small 
to  him.  He  is  so  put  up  by  nature  that  a  lash  upon  his  back  would  hurt  him, 
but  a  lash  upon  anybody  else's  back  does  not  hurt  him.  That  is  the  build  of 
the  man,  and  consequently  he  looks  upon  the  matter  of  slavery  in  this  unim- 
portant light. 

Judge  Douglas  ought  to  remember,  when  he  is  endeavoring  to  force  this 
policy  upon  the  American  people,  that  while  he  is  put  up  in  that  way,  a  good 
many  are  not.  He  ought  to  remember  that  there  was  once  in  this  country  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  supposed  to  be  a  Democrat,  —  a  man 
whose  principles  and  policy  are  not  very  prevalent  amongst  Democrats  to-day, 
it  is  true  ;  but  that  man  did  not  take  exactly  this  view  of  the  insignificance  of 
the  element  of  slavery  which  our  friend  Judge  Douglas  does.  In  contempla- 
tion of  this  thing,  we  all  know  he  was  led  to  exclaim,  "  I  tremble  for  ray 
country  when  I  remember  that  God  is  just !  "  We  know  how  he  looked  upon 
it  when  he  thus  expressed  himself.  There  was  danger  to  this  country,  — 
danger  of  the  avenging  justice  of  God,  —  in  that  little  unimportant  Popular 
Sovereignty  question  of  Judge  Douglas.  He  supposed  there  was  a  question 
of  God's  eternal  justice  wrapped  up  iii  the  enslaving  of  any  race  of  men,  or 
any  man,  and  that  those  who  did  so  braved  the  arm  of  Jehovah  ;  that  when 
a  nation  thus  dared  the  Almighty,  every  friend  of  that  nation  had  cause  to 
dread  his  wrath.  Clioose  ye  between  Jefferson  and  Douglas  as  to  what  is  the 
true  view  of  this  element  among;  us. 

37 


290  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

There  is  another  little  difficulty  about  this  matter  of  treating  the  Territories 
and  States  alike  in  all  things,  to  which  I  ask  your  attention,  and  I  shall  leave 
this  branch  of  tlie  case.  If  there  is  no  difference  between  them,  why  not 
make  the  Territories  States  at  once  ?  What  is  the  reason  that  Kansas  was 
not  fit  to  come  into  the  Union  when  it  was  organized  into  a  Territory,  in 
Judge  Douglas's  view  ?  Can  any  of  you  tell  any  reason  why  it  should  not 
have  come  into  the  Union  at  once  ?  They  are  fit,  as  he  thinks,  to  decide  upon 
the  slavery  question, —  the  largest  and  most  important  with  which  they  could 
possibly  deal :  what  could  they  do  by  coming  into  the  Union  that  they  are 
not  fit  to  do,  according  to  his  view,  by  staying  out  of  it  ?  Oh,  they  are  not  fit 
to  sit  in  Congress  and  decide  upon  the  rates  of  postage,  or  questions  of  ad 
valorem  or  specific  duties  on  foreign  goods,  or  live  oak  timber  contracts,  — 
they  are  not  fit  to  decide  these  vastly  important  matters,  wdiich  are  national 
in  their  import,  —  but  they  are  fit,  "  from  the  jump,"  to  decide  this  little 
negro  question.  But,  gentlemen,  the  case  is  too  plain  ;  I  occupy  too  much 
time  on  this  head,   and  I  pass  on. 

Near  the  close  of  the  copyright  essay,  the  Judge,  I  think,  comes  very  near 
kickimr  his  own  fat  into  the  fire.  I  did  not  think,  when  I  commenced  these 
remarks,  that  I  would  read  from  that  article,  but  I  now  believe  I  will :  — 

"This  exposition  of  the  history  of  these  measures  shows  conclusively  that  the 
authors  of  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850  and  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  of 
1854,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  Continental  Congress  of  1774,  and  the  foundei's 
of  our  system  of  government  subsequent  to  the  Revolution,  regarded  the  people  of 
the  Territories  and  Colonies  as  political  communities  which  were  entitled  to  a  free 
and  exclusive  power  of  legislation  in  their  provisional  legislatures,  wdiere  their  repre- 
sentation could  alone  be  preserved,  in  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal  polity." 

When  the  Judge  saw  that  putting  in  the  word  "  slavery  "  would  contradict 
his  own  history,  he  put  in  what  he  knew-  would  pass  as  synonymous  with 
it,  —  "  internal  polity."  Whenever  we  find  that  in  one  of  his  speeches,  the 
substitute  is  used  in  this  manner ;  and  I  can  tell  you  the  reason.  It  would  be 
too  bald  a  contradiction  to  say  slavery  ;  but  "  internal  polity  "  is  a,  general 
phrase,  which  would  pass  in  some  quarters,  and  which  he  hopes  will  pass  with 
the  reading  community  for  the  same  thing. 

"  This  right  pertains  to  the  people  collectively,  as  a  law-abiding  and  peace- 
ful community,  and  not  in  the  isolated  individuals  wdio  may  wander  upon  the 
public  domain  in  violation  of  the  law.  It  can  only  be  exercised  where  there 
are  inhabitants  sufficient  to  constitute  a  government,  and  capable  of  perform- 
ing its  various  functions  and  duties,  —  a  fact  to  be  ascertained  and  determined 
by  "  —  who  do  you  think  ?  Judge  Douglas  says  "  By  Congress  ! "  "  Whether 
the  number  shall  be  fixed  at  ten,  fifteen  or  twenty  thousand  inhabitants,  does 
not  afi'ect  the  principle." 

Now,  I  have  only  a  few  comments  to  make.  Popular  Sovereignty,  by  his 
own  words,  does  not  pertain  to  the  few  persons  who  wander  upon  the  public 
domain  in  violation  of  law.  We  have  his  words  for  that.  Wlien  it  does 
pertain  to  them,  is  when  they  are  sufficient  to  be  formed  into  an  organized 
political  community,  and  he  fixes  the  minimum  for  that  at  ten  thousand,  and 
the  maximum  at  twenty  thousand.  Now,  I  would  like  to  know  wdiat  is  to  be 
done  with  the  nine  thousand  ?  Are  they  all  to  be  treated,  until  they  are  large 
enough  to  be  organized  into  a  political  community,  as  wanderers  upon  the 
public  land,  in  violation  of  law  ?  And  if  so  treated  and  driven  out,  at  what 
point  of  time  would  there  ever  be  ten  thousand  ?     If  they  were  not  driven 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  291 

out,  but  remained  there  as  trespassers  upon  the  public  land  in  violation  of  the 
law,  can  they  establish  slavery  tliere  ?  No  ;  the  Judtje  says  Popular  Sov- 
ereignty don't  pertain  to  them  then.  Can  they  exclude  it  then  ?  No ;  Popular 
Sovereignty  don't  pertain  to  them  then.  I  would  like  to  know,  in  the  case 
covered  by  the  essay,  what  condition  the  people  of  the  Territory  are  in  before 
they  reach  the  number  of  ten  thousand  ? 

But  the  main  point  I  wish  to  ask  attention  to  is,  that  the  question  as  to 
when  they  shall  have  reached  a  sufficient  number  to  be  formed  into  a  regular 
organized  community  is  to  be  decided  "  by  Congress."  Judge  Douglas  says 
so.  Well,  gentlemen,  that  is  al)out  all  we  want.  No,  that  is  all  the  Southern- 
ers want.  That  is  what  all  those  who  are  for  slavery  want.  They  do  not 
want  Congress  to  ])rohibit  slavery  from  coming  into  the  new  Territories,  and 
they  do  not  want  Popular  Sovereignty  to  hinder  it ;  and  as  Congress  is  to  say 
when  they  are  ready  to  be  organized,  all  that  the  South  has  to  do  is  to  get 
Congress  to  hold  off.  Let  Congress  hold  off  until  they  are  ready  to  be  admitted 
as  a  State,  and  the  Soutli  has  all  it  wants  in  taking  slavery  into  and  planting 
it  in  all  the  Territories  that  we  now  have,  or  hereafter  may  have.  In  a  word, 
the  whole  thing,  at  a  dash  of  the  pen,  is  at  last  put  in  the  power  of  Congress ; 
for  if  they  do  not  have  this  Popular  Sovereignty  until  Congress  organizes 
them,  I  ask  if  it  at  last  does  not  come  from  Congress  ?  If,  at  last,  it  amounts 
to  anything  at  all.  Congress  gives  it  to  them.  I  submit  this  rather  for  your 
reflection  than  for  comment.  After  all  that  is  said,  at  last,  by  a  dash  of  the 
pen,  everything  that  has  gone  before  is  undone,  and  he  puts  the  whole  question 
under  the  control  of  Congress.  After  fighting  through  more  than  three  hours, 
if  you  undertake  to  read  it,  he  at  last  places  the  whole  matter  under  the 
control  of  that  power  which  he  had  been  contending  against,  and  arrives  at  a 
result  directly  contrary  to  what  he  had  been  laboring  to  do.  He  at  last  leaves 
the  whole  matter  to  the  control  of  Congress. 

There  are  two  main  objects,  as  I  understand  it,  of  this  Harper's  Magazine 
essay.  One  was  to  show,  if  possible,  that  the  men  of  our  Eevolutionary  times 
were  in  favor  of  his  Popular  Sovereignty,  and  the  other  was  to  show  that  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  had  not  entirely  squelched  out  this  Popular  Sovereignty. 
I  do  not  propose,  in  regard  to  this  argument  drawn  from  the  history  of  former 
times,  to  enter  into  a  detailed  examination  of  the  historical  statements  he 
has  made.  I  have  the  impression  that  they  are  inaccurate  in  a  great  many 
instances,  —  sometimes  in  positive  statement,  but  very  much  more  inaccurate 
by  the  suppression  of  statements  that  really  belong  to  the  history.  But  I  do 
not  propose  to  affirm  that  this  is  so  to  any  very  great  extent,  or  to  enter  into  a 
very  minute  examination  of  his  historical  statements.  I  avoid  doing  so  upon 
this  principle,  —  that  if  it  were  important  for  me  to  pass  out  of  this  lot  in  the 
least  period  of  time  possible,  and  I  came  to  that  fence,  and  saw  by  a  calcula- 
tion of  my  known  strength  and  agility  that  I  could  clear  it  at  a  bound,  it 
would  be  folly  for  me  to  stop  and  consider  whether  I  could  or  not  crawl 
through  a  crack.  So  I  say  of  the  whole  history  contained  in  his  essay  where 
he  endeavored  to  link  the  men  of  the, Revolution  to  Popular  Sovereignty.  It 
only  requires  an  effort  to  leap  out  of  it,  a  single  bound  to  be  entirely  success- 
ful. If  you  read  it  over,  you  will  find  that  he  quotes  here  and  there  from 
documents  of  the  Revolutionary  times,  tending  to  show  that  the  people  of  the 
colonies  were  desirous  of  regulating  their  own  concerns  in  their  own  way,  that 
the  British  Government  should  not  interfere ;  that  at  one  time  they  struggled 
with  the  British  Government  to  be  permitted  to  exclude  tlie  African  slave- 
trade,  —  if  not  directly,  to  be  permitted  to  exclude  it  indirectly,  by  taxation 


292  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

sufficient  to  discourage  and  destroy  it.  From  these  and  many  things  of  this 
sort,  Judge  Douglas  argues  that  they  were  in  favor  of  the  people  of  our  own 
Territories  excluding  slavery  if  they  wanted  to,  or  planting  it  there  if  they 
wanted  to,  doing  just  as  they  pleased  from  the  time  they  settled  upon  the 
Territory.  Now,  however  his  history  may  apply ;  and  whatever  of  his  argu- 
ment there  may  be  that  is  sound  and  accurate  or  unsound  and  inaccurate,  if 
we  can  find  out  what  these  men  did  themselves  do  upon  this  very  question  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories,  does  it  not  end  the  whole  thing  ?  If,  after  all  this 
labor  and  effort  to  show  that  the  men  of  the  Eevolution  were  in  favor  of  his 
Popular  Sovereignty  and  his  mode  of  dealing  with  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
we  can  show  that  these  very  men  took  hold  of  that  subject,  and  dealt  with 
it,  we  can  see  for  ourselves  lioto  they  dealt  with  it.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
argument  or  inference,  but  we  know  what  they  thought  about  it. 

It  is  precisely  upon  that  part  of  the  history  of  the  country  that  one  impor- 
tant omission  is  made  by  Judge  Douglas.  He  selects  parts  of  the  history  of 
the  United  States  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  treats  it  as  the  whole, 
omitting  from  his  historical  sketch  the  legislation  of  Congress  in  regard  to  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  by  which  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  established, 
and  slavery  excluded  from  a  country  half  as  large  as  the  present  United  States. 
All  this  is  left  out  of  his  history,  and  in  nowise  alluded  to  by  him,  so  far  as  I 
can  remember,  save  once,  when  he  makes  a  remark,  that  upon  his  principle 
the  Supreme  Court  were  authorized  to  pronounce  a  decision  that  the  Act  called 
the  Missouri  Compromise  was  unconstitutional.  All  that  history  has  been 
left  out.  But  this  part  of  the  history  of  the  country  was  not  made  by  the 
men  of  the  Eevolution. 

There  was  another  part  of  our  political  history,  made  by  the  very  men  who 
were  the  actors  in  the  Revolution,  which  has  taken  the  name  of  the  Ordinance 
of  '87.  Let  me  bring  that  history  to  your  attention.  In  1784,  I  believe,  this 
same  Mr.  Jefferson  drew  up  an  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the  country 
upon  which  w^e  now  stand,  or,  rather,  a  frame  or  draft  of  an  ordinance  for  the 
government  of  this  country,  here  in  Ohio,  our  neighbors  in  Indiana,  us  who 
live  in  Illinois,  our  neighbors  in  Wisconsin  and  Michigan.  In  that  ordinance, 
drawn  up  not  only  for  the  government  of  that  Territory,  but  for  the  Territories 
south  of  the  Ohio  Eiver,  Mr.  Jefferson  expressly  provided  for  the  prohibition 
of  slavery.  Judge  Douglas  says,  and  perhaps  is  right,  that  that  provision  was 
lost  from  that  ordinance.  I  believe  that  is  true.  When  the  vote  was  taken 
upon  it,  a  majority  of  all  present  in  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  voted 
for  it ;  but  there  were  so  many  absentees  that  those  voting  for  it  did  not  make 
the  clear  majority  necessary,  and  it  was  lost.  But  three  years  after  that,  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation  were  together  again,  and  they  adopted  a  new 
ordinance  for  the  government  of  this  Northwest  Territory,  not  contemplating 
territory  south  of  the  river,  for  the  States  owning  that  territory  had  hitherto 
refrained  from  giving  it  to  the  General  Government ;  lience  they  made  the 
ordinance  to  apply  only  to  what  the  Government  owned.  In  that,  the  provi- 
sion excluding  slavery  loas  inserted  and  passed  unanimously,  or  at  any  rate  it 
passed  and  became  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  Under  that  ordinance  we 
live.  First  here  in  Ohio  you  were  a  Territory,  then  an  enabling  Act  was 
passed,  authorizing  you  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  Government,  provided 
it  was  republican  and  not  in  conflict  with  the  Ordinance  of  '87.  When  you 
framed  your  constitution  and  presented  it  for  admission,  I  think  you  will  find 
the  legislation  upon  the  subject  will  show  that,  "  whereas  you  had  formed  a 
constitution  that  was  republican,  and  not  in  conflict  with  the  Ordinance  of 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  293 

'87,"  therefore,  you  were  admitted  upon  equal  footing  with  the  original  States. 
The  same  process  in  a  few  years  was  gone  through  with  in  Indiana,  and  so 
with  Illinois,  and  the  same  substantially  with  Michigan  and  Wisconsin. 

Not  only  did  that  Ordinance  prevail,  but  it  was  constantly  looked  to  when- 
ever a  step  was  taken  by  a  new  Territory  to  become  a  State.  Congress  always 
turned  their  attention  to  it,  and  in  all  their  movements  upon  this  subject  they 
traced  their  course  by  that  Ordinance  of  '87.  When  they  admitted  new 
States,  they  advertised  them  of  this  Ordinance,  as  a  part  of  the  legislation 
of  the  country.  They  did  so  because  they  had  traced  the  Ordinance  of  '87 
throughout  the  history  of  this  country.  Begin  with  the  men  of  the  ITevolution, 
and  go  down  for  sixty  entire  years,  and  until  the  last  scrap  of  that  Territory 
comes  into  the  Union  in  the  form  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  everything  was 
made  to  conform  with  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  excluding  slavery  from  that  vast 
extent  of  country. 

I  omitted  to  mention  in  the  right  place  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  was  in  process  of  being  framed  when  that  Ordinance  was  made  by  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation ;  and  one  of  the  first  Acts  of  Congress  itself, 
under  the  new  Constitution  itself,  was  to  give  force  to  that  Ordinance  by 
putting  power  to  carry  it  out  in  the  hands  of  the  new  officers  under  the  Con- 
stitution, in  the  place  of  the  old  ones,  who  had  been  legislated  out  of  existence 
by  the  change  in  the  Government  from  the  Confederation  to  the  Constitution. 
Not  only  so,  but  I  believe  Indiana  once  or  twice,  if  not  Ohio,  petitioned  the 
General  Government  for  the  privilege  of  suspending  that  provision  and  allowing 
them  to  have  slaves.  A  report  made  by  Mr.  Eandolph,  of  Virginia,  himself  a 
slaveholder,  was  directly  against  it,  and  the  action  was  to  refuse  them  the 
privilege  of  violating  the  Ordinance  of  '87. 

This  period  of  history,  which  I  have  run  over  briefly,  is,  I  presume,  as 
familiar  to  most  of  this  assembly  as  any  other  part  of  the  history  of  our 
country.  I  suppose  that  few  of  my  hearers  are  not  as  familiar  with  that  part 
of  history  as  I  am,  and  I  only  mention  it  to  recall  your  attention  to  it  at  this 
time.  And  hence  I  ask  how  extraordinary  a  thing  it  is  that  a  man  who  has 
occupied  a  position  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  who  is 
now  in  his  third  term,  and  who  looks  to  see  the  government  of  this  whole 
country  fall  into  his  own  hands,  pretending  to  give  a  truthful  and  accurate 
history  of  the  slavery  question  in  this  country,  should  so  entirely  ignore  the 
whole  of  that  portion  of  our  history,  —  the  most  important  of  all.  Is  it  not  a 
most  extraordinary  spectacle  that  a  man  should  stand  up  and  ask  for  any  con- 
fidence in  his  statements  who  sets  out  as  he  does  with  portions  of  history, 
calling  upon  the  people  to  believe  that  it  is  a  true  and  fair  representation, 
when  the  leading  part  and  controlling  feature  of  the  whole  history  is  carefully 
suppressed  ? 

But  the  mere  leaving  out  is  not  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  this  most 
remarkable  essay.  His  proposition  is  to  establish  that  the  leading  men  of  the 
Revolution  were  for  his  great  principle  of  non-intervention  by  the  government 
in  the  question  of  slavery  in  tlie  Territories,  while  history  shows  that  they 
decided,  in  the  cases  actually  brought  before  them,  in  exactly  the  contrary  way, 
and  he  knows  it.  Not  only  did  they  so  decide  at  that  time,  but  they  stuck  to 
it  during  sixty  years,  through  thick  and  thin,  as  long  as  there  was  one  of  the 
Eevolutionary  heroes  upon  the  stage  of  political  action.  Through  their  whole 
course,  from  first  to  last,  they  clung  to  freedom.  And  now  he  asks  the  com- 
munity to  believe  that  the  men  of  the  Eevolution  were  in  favor  of  his  great 
principle,  when  we  have  the  naked  history  that  they  themselves  dealt  with 


294  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

this  very  subject-matter  of  his  principle,  and  utterly  repudiated  his  principle, 
acting  upon  a  precisely  contrary  ground.  It  is  as  impudent  and  absurd  as  if 
a  prosecuting  attorney  should  stand  up  before  a  jury  and  ask  them  to  convict 
A  as  the  murderer  of  B,  while  B  was  walking  alive  before  them. 

I  say,  again,  if  Judge  Douglas  asserts  that  the  men  of  the  Eevolution 
acted  upon  principles  by  which,  to  be  consistent  with  themselves,  they  ought 
to  have  adopted  his  popular  sovereignty,  then,  upon  a  consideration  of  his  own 
argument,  he  had  a  right  to  make  you  believe  that  they  understood  the 
principles  of  government,  but  misapplied  them,  —  that  he  has  arisen  to 
enlighten  the  world  as  to  the  just  application  of  this  principle.  He  has  a 
right  to  try  to  persuade  you  that  he  understands  their  principles  better  than 
they  did,  and,  therefore,  he  will  apply  them  now,  not  as  they  did,  but  as  they 
ought  to  have  done.  He  has  a  right  to  go  before  the  community  and  try  to 
convince  them  of  this,  but  he  has  no  right  to  attempt  to  impose  upon  any 
one  the  belief  that  these  men  themselves  approved  of  his  great  principle. 
There  are  two  ways  of  establishing  a  proposition.  One  is  by  trying  to 
demon.strate  it  upon  reason,  and  the  other  is,  to  show  that  great  men  in  former 
times  have  thought  so  and  so,  and  thus  to  pass  it  by  tlie  weight  of  pure 
authority.  Now,  if  Judge  Douglas  will  demonstrate  somehow^  that  this  is 
popular  sovereignty,  —  the  right  of  one  man  to  make  a  slave  of  another, 
without  any  right  in  that  other,  or  any  one  else  to  object,  —  demonstrate  it 
as  Euclid  demonstrated  propositions, —  there  is  no  objection.  But  when  he 
comes  forward,  seeking  to  carry  a  principle  by  bringing  to  it  the  authority  of 
men  who  themselves  utterly  repudiate  that  principle,  I  ask  that  he  shall  not 
be  permitted  to  do  it. 

I  see,  in  the  Judge's  speech  here,  a  short  sentence  in  these  words  :  "Our 
fathers,  when  they  formed  this  government  under  which  we  live,  understood 
this  question  just  as  well,  and  even  better  than,  we  do  now."  That  is  true  ;  I 
stick  to  that.  I  will  stand  by  Judge  Douglas  in  that  to  the  bitter  end.  And 
now.  Judge  Douglas,  come  and  stand  by  me,  and  truthfully  show  how  they 
acted,  understanding  it  better  than  we  do.  All  I  ask  of  you,  Judge  Douglas, 
is  to  stick  to  the  proposition  that  the  men  of  tlie  Eevolution  undei-stood  this 
subject  better  than  we  do  now,  and  with  that  better  understanding  they  acted 
letter  than  you  are  trying  to  act  now. 

I  wish  to  say  something  now  in  regard  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  as  dealt 
with  by  Judge  Douglas.  In  that  "  memorable  debate "  between  Judge 
Douglas  and  myself,  last  year,  the  Judge  thought  fit  to  commence  a  process 
of  catechising  me,  and  at  Freeport  I  answered  his  questions,  and  propounded 
some  to  him.  Among  others  propounded  to  him  was  one  that  I  have  here 
now.  The  substance,  as  I  remember  it,  is,  "  Can  the  people  of  a  United 
States  Territory,  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in  any  lawful  way,  against 
the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits, 
prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  constitution  ? "  He  answered  that  they 
could  lawfully  exclude  slavery  from  the  United  States  Territories,  notwith- 
standing the  Dred  Scott  decision.  There  was  something  about  that  answer 
that  has  probably  been  a  trouble  to  the  Judge  ever  since. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  expressly  gives  every  citizen  of  the  United  States 
a  right  to  carry  his  slaves  into  the  United  States  Territories.  And  now  there 
was  some  inconsistency  in  saying  that  the  decision  was  right,  and  saying,  too, 
that  the  people  of  the  Territory  could  lawfully  drive  slavery  out  again.  When 
all  the  trash,  the  words,  the  collateral  matter,  was  cleared  away  from  it,  all  the 
chaff  was  fanned  out  of  it,  it  was  a  bare  absurdity,  — no  less  than  that  a  thing 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  295 

may  he  lawfully  driven  away  from  where  it  has  a  laioful right  to  he.  Clear  it 
of  all  the  verbiage,  and  that  is  the  naked  truth  of  his  proposition,  —  that 
a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven  from  the  plai'.e  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to 
stay.  Well,  it  was  because  the  Judge  could  n't  lielp  seeing  this  that  he  has 
had  so  much  trouble  with  it ;  and  what  I  want  to  ask  your  especial  attention 
to,  just  now,  is  to  remind  you,  if  you  have  not  noticed  the  fact,  that  the 
Judge  does  not  any  longer  say  that  the  people  can  exclude  slavery,  lie  does 
not  say  so  in  the  copyright  essay  ;  he  did  not  say  so  in  the  speech  that  he 
made  here  ;  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  since  his  re-election  to  the  Senate  he  has 
never  said,  as  he  did  at  Freeport,  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  can 
exclude  slavery.  He  desires  that  you,  who  wish  the  Territories  to  remain 
free,  should  believe  that  he  stands  by  that  position  ;  but  he  does  not  say  it 
himself.  He  escapes  to  some  extent  the  absurd  position  I  have  stated,  by 
changing  his  language  entirely.  What  he  says  now  is  something  different  in 
language  :  and  we  will  consider  whether  it  is  not  different  in  sense  too.  It  is 
now  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  or  rather  the  Constitution  under  that 
decision,  does  not  carry  slavery  into  the  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  the 
people  of  the  Territories  to  control  it  as  other  ^''^^ojjerty.  He  does  not  say 
the  people  can  drive  it  out,  but  they  can  control  it  as  other  property.  The 
language  is  different;  we  should  consider  whether  the  sense  is  different. 
Driving  a  horse  out  of  this  lot  is  too  plain  a  proposition  to  be  mistaken  about ; 
it  is  putting  him  on  the  other  side  of  the  fence.  Or  it  might  be  a  sort  of 
exclusion  of  him  from  the  lot  if  you  were  to  kill  him  and  let  the  worms 
devour  him  ;  but  neither  of  these  things  is  the  same  as  "  controlling  him  as 
other  property."  That  would  be  to  feed  him,  to  pamper  him,  to  ride  him,  to 
use  and  abuse  him,  to  make  the  most  money  out  of  him,  "as  other  property  ;" 
but  please  you,  what  do  the  men  who  are  in  favor  of  slavery  want  more  than 
this  ?  What  do  they  really  want,  other  than  that  slavery,  being  in  the 
Territories,  shall  be  controlled  as  other  property  ? 

If  they  want  anything  else,  I  do  not  comprehend  it.  I  ask  your  attention 
to  this,  first,  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  change  of  ground  the  Judge 
has  made;  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  importance  of  the  change,  —  that  that 
change  is  not  such  as  to  give  you  gentlemen  who  w^ant  his  popular  sovereignty 
the  power  to  exclude  the  institution  or  drive  it  out  at  all.  I  know  the  Judge 
sometimes  squints  at  the  argument  that  in  controlling  it  as  other  property  by 
unfriendly  legislation  they  may  control  it  to  death,  as  you  might,  in  the  case  of 
a  horse,  perhaps,  feed  him  so  lightly  and  ride  him  so  much  that  he  would  die. 
But  when  you  come  to  legislative  control,  there  is  something  more  to  be 
attended  to.  I  have  no  doubt,  myself,  that  if  the  Territories  should  under- 
take to  control  slave  property  as  other  property,  —  that  is,  control  it  in  such 
a  way  that  it  would  be  the  most  valuable  as  property,  and  make  it  bear  its 
just  proportion  in  the  way  of  burdens  as  property,  —  really  deal  with  it  as 
property,  —  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  will  say,  "  God  speed 
you,  and  amen."  But  I  undertake  to  give  the  opinion,  at  least,  that  if  the 
Territories  attempt  by  any  direct  legislation  to  drive  the  man  with  his  slave 
out  of  the  Territory,  or  to  decide  that  his  slave  is  free  because  of  his  being 
taken  in  there,  or  to  tax  him  to  such  an  extent  that  he  cannot  keep  him 
there,  the  Supreme  Court  will  unhesitatingly  decide  all  such  legislation  un- 
constitutional, as  long  as  that  Supreme  Court  is  constructed  as  the  Dred  Scott 
Supreme  Court  is.  The  first  two  things  they  have  already  decided,  except 
that  there  is  a  little  quibble  among  lawyers  between  the  words  "  dicta  "  and 
"decision."  They  have  already  decided  a  negro  cannot  be  made  free  by 
Territorial  legislation. 


296  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

What  is  that  Dred  Scott  decision  ?  Judge  Douglas  labors  to  show  that  it 
is  one  thing,  while  I  think  it  is  altogether  different.  It  is  a  long  opinion,  but 
it  is  all  embodied  in  this  short  statement :  "  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  forbids  Congress  to  deprive  a  man  of  his  property,  without  due  process 
of  law ;  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in 
that  Constitution :  therefore,  if  Congress  shall  undertake  to  say  that  a  man's 
slave  is  no  longer  his  slave  when  he  crosses  a  certain  line  into  a  Territory,  that 
is  depriving  him  of  his  property  without  due  process  of  law,  and  is  unconstitu- 
tional." There  is  the  whole  Dred  Scott  decision.  They  add  that  if  Congress 
cannot  do  so  itself.  Congress  cannot  confer  any  power  to  do  so  ;  and  hence  any 
effort  by  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  do  either  of  these  things  is  absolutely 
decided  against.     It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  by  that  court. 

Now,  as  to  this  indirect  mode  by  "  unfrieneily  legislation,"  all  lawyers  here 
will  readily  understand  that  such  a  proposition  cannot  be  tolerated  for  a 
moment,  because  a  legislature  cannot  indirectly  do  that  which  it  cannot 
accomplish  directly.  Then  I  say  any  legislation  to  control  this  property,  as 
property,  for  its  benefit  as  property,  would  be  hailed  by  this  Dred  Scott 
Supreme  Court,  and  fully  sustained ;  but  any  legislation  driving  slave  prop- 
erty out,  or  destroying  it  as  property,  directly  or  indirectly,  will  most  assuredly, 
by  that  court,  be  held  unconstitutional. 

Judge  Douglas  says  if  the  Constitution  carries  slavery  into  the  Territories, 
beyond  the  power  of  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  control  it  as  other  prop- 
erty, then  it  follows  logically  that  every  one  who  swears  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  must  give  that  support  to  that  property  which 
it  needs.  And  if  the  Constitution  carries  slavery  into  the  Territories,  beyond 
the  power  of  the  people  to  control  it  as  other  property,  then  it  also  carries  it 
into  the  States,  because  the  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Now, 
gentlemen,  if  it  were  not  for  my  excessive  modesty,  I  would  say  that  I  told  that 
very  thing  to  Judge  Douglas  quite  a  year  ago.  This  argument  is  here  in  print, 
and  if  it  were  not  for  my  modesty,  as  I  said,  I  might  call  your  attention  to  it. 
If  you  read  it,  you  will  find  that  I  not  only  made  that  argument,  but  made  it 
better  than  he  has  made  it  since. 

There  is,  however,  this  difference.  I  say  now,  and  said  then,  there  is  no  sort 
of  question  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  slave- 
holder to  take  his  slave  and  hold  him  in  the  Territory ;  and  saying  this,  Judge 
Douglas  himself  admits  the  conclusion.  He  says  if  that  is  so,  this  consequence 
will  follow;  and  because  this  consequence  would  follow,  his  argument  is,  the 
decision  cannot,  therefore,  be  that  way, —  "that  would  spoil  my  Popular  Sover- 
eignty ;  and  it  cannot  be  possible  that  this  great  principle  has  been  squelched 
out  in  this  extraordinary  way.  It  might  be,  if  it  were  not  for  the  extraordinary 
consequences  of  spoiling  my  humbug." 

Another  feature  of  the  Judge's  argument  about  the  Dred  Scott  case  is,  an 
effort  to  show  that  that  decision  deals  altogether  in  declarations  of  negatives  ; 
that  tlie  Constitution  does  not  affirm  anything  as  expounded  by  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  but  it  only  declares  a  want  of  power  —  a  total  absence  of  power —  in 
reference  to  the  Territories.  It  seems  to  be  his  purpose  to  make  the  whole  of 
that  decision  to  result  in  a  mere  negative  declaration  of  a  want  of  power  in 
Congress  to  do  anything  in  relation  to  this  matter  in  the  Territories.  I  know 
the  opinion  of  the  Judges  states  that  there  is  a  total  absence  of  power ;  but 
that  is,  unfortunately,  not  all  it  states :  for  the  Judges  add  that  the  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution.  It 
does  not  stop  at  saying  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  recognized  in  the 
Constitution,  is  declared  to  exist  somewhere  in  the  Constitution,  but  says  it  is 


AND   STEPHEN  A.    DOUGLAS.  297 

affirmed  in  the  Constitution.  Its  language  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  it  is 
embodied  and  so  woven  in  that  instrument  that  it  cannot  be  detached  without 
breaking  the  Constitution  itself.     In  a  word,  it  is  part  of  the  Constitution. 

Douglas  is  singularly  unfortunate  in  his  effort  to  make  out  that  decision  to 
be  altogether  negative,  when  the  express  language  at  the  vital  part  is  that  this 
is  distinctly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution.  I  think  myself,  and  I  repeat  it 
here,  that  this  decision  does  not  merely  carry  slavery  into  the  Territories,  but 
by  its  logical  conclusion  it  carries  it  into  the  States  in  which  we  live.  One 
provision  of  that  Constitution  is,  that  it  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
—  I  do  not  quote  the  language,  —  any  constitution  or  law  of  any  State  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  This  Dred  Scott  decision  says  that  the  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  affirmed  in  that  Constitution  which  is  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  any  State  constitution  or  law  notwithstanding.  Then  I  say  that 
to  destroy  a  thing  which  is  distinctly  affirmed  and  supported  by  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land,  even  by  a  State  constitution  or  law,  is  a  violation  of  that 
supreme  law,  and  there  is  no  escape  from  it.  In  my  judgment  there  is  no 
avoiding  that  result,  save  that  the  American  people  shall  see  that  constitutions 
are  better  construed  than  our  Constitution  is  construed  in  that  decision.  They 
must  take  care  that  it  is  more  faithfully  and  truly  carried  out  than  it  is  there 
expounded. 

I  must  hasten  to  a  conclusion.  Near  the  beginning  of  my  remarks  I  said 
that  this  insidious  Douglas  Popular  Sovereignty  is  the  measure  that  now 
threatens  the  purpose  of  the  Republican  party  to  prevent  slavery  from  being 
nationalized  in  the  United  States.  I  propose  to  ask  your  attention  for  a  little 
while  to  some  propositions  in  affirmance  of  that  statement.  Take  it  just  as  it 
stands,  and  apply  it  as  a  principle ;  extend  and  apply  that  principle  elsewhere  ; 
and  consider  where  it  will  lead  you.  I  now  put  this  proposition,  that  Judge 
Douglas's  Popular  Sovereignty  applied  will  reopen  the  African  slave-trade;  and 
I  will  demonstrate  it  by  any  variety  of  ways  in  which  you  can  turn  the  subject 
or  look  at  it. 

The  Judge  says  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  have  the  right,  by  his 
principle,  to  have  slaves,  if  they  want  them.  Then  I  say  that  the  people  in 
Georgia  have  the  right  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if  they  want  them ;  and  I  defy 
any  man  on  earth  to  show  any  distinction  between  the  two  things,  —  to  show 
that  the  one  is  either  more  wicked  or  more  unlawful ;  to  show,  on  original 
principles,  that  one  is  better  or  worse  than  the  other ;  or  to  show,  by  the  Con- 
stitution, that  one  differs  a  whit  from  the  other.  He  will  tell  me,  doubtless, 
that  there  is  no  constitutional  provision  against  people  taking  slaves  into  the 
new  Territories,  and  I  tell  him  that  there  is  equally  no  constitutional  provision 
against  buying  slaves  in  Africa.  He  will  tell  you  that  a  people,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  popular  sovereignty,  ought  to  do  as  they  please  about  that  thing,  and 
have  slaves  if  they  want  them;  and  I  tell  you  that  the  people  of  Georgia 
are  as  much  entitled  to  popular  sovereignty  and  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if 
they  want  them,  as  the  people  of  the  Territory  are  to  have  slaves  if  they 
want  them.  I  ask  any  man,  dealing  honestly  with  himself,  to  point  out  a 
distinction. 

I  have  recently  seen  a  letter  of  Judge  Douglas's  in  which,  without  stating 
that  to  be  the  object,  he  doubtless  endeavors  to  make  a  distinction  between  the 
two.  He  says  lie  is  unalterably  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  against  the 
African  slave-trade.  And  why  ?  He  then  seeks  to  give  a  reason  that  would 
not  apply  to  his  popular  sovereignty  in  the  Territories.  What  is  that  reason  ? 
"The  abolition  of  the  African  slave-trade  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitu- 

38 


298  DEBATES    BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

tion !  "  I  deny  it.  There  is  no  truth  in  the  proposition  that  the  abolition  of 
the  African  slave-trade  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution.  No  man  can  put 
his  finger  on  anything  in  the  Constitution,  or  on  the  line  of  history,  which 
shows  it.  It  is  a  mere  barren  assertion,  made  simply  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
up  a  distinction  between  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade  and  his  "great 
principle." 

At  the  time  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  adopted,  it  was 
expected  that  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished.  I  should  assert  and  insist 
upon  that,  if  Judge  Douglas  denied  it.  But  I  know  that  it  was  equally 
expected  that  slavery  would  be  excluded  from  the  Territories,  and  I  can  show 
by  history  that  in  regard  to  these  two  things  public  opinion  was  exactly  alike, 
while  in  regard  to  positive  action,  there  was  more  done  in  the  Ordinance  of  '87 
to  resist  the  spread  of  slavery  than  was  ever  done  to  abolish  the  foreign  slave- 
trade.  Lest  I  be  misunderstood,  I  say  again  that  at  the  time  of  the  formation 
of  the  Constitution,  public  expectation  was  that  the  slave-trade  would  be 
abolished,  but  no  more  so  than  the  spread  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  should 
be  restrained.  They  stand  alike,  except  that  in  the  Ordinance  of  '87  there  was 
a  mark  left  by  public  opinion,  showing  that  it  was  more  committed  against 
the  spread  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  than  against  the  foreign  slave-trade. 

Compromise  !  What  word  of  compromise  was  there  about  it  ?  Why,  the 
public  sense  was  then  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade ;  but  there 
was  at  the  time  a  very  great  commercial  interest  involved  in  it,  and  extensive 
capital  in  that  branch  of  trade.  There  were  doubtless  the  incipient  stages  of 
improvement  in  the  South  in  the  way  of  farming,  dependent  on  the  slave- 
trade,  and  they  made  a  proposition  to  Congress  to  abolish  the  trade  after  allow- 
ing it  twenty  years,  —  a  suiiicient  time  for  the  capital  and  commerce  engaged 
in  it  to  be  transferred  to  other  channels.  They  made  no  provision  that  it 
should  be  abolished  in  twenty  years ;  I  do  not  doubt  that  they  expected  it 
would  be,  but  they  made  no  bargain  about  it.  The  public  sentiment  left  no 
doubt  in  the  minds  of  any  that  it  would  be  done  away.  I  repeat,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  history  of  those  times  in  favor  of  that  matter  being  a  com- 
^romise  of  the  Constitution.  It  was  the  public  expectation  at  the  time, 
manifested  in  a  thousand  ways,  that  the  spread  of  slavery  should  also  be 
restricted. 

Then  I  say,  if  this  principle  is  established,  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery, 
and  whoever  wants  it  has  a  right  to  have  it,  —  is  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents, 
a  sort  of  question  as  to  how  they  shall  deal  with  brutes,  —  that  between  us  and 
the  negro  here  there  is  no  sort  of  question,  but  that  at  the  South  the  ques- 
tion is  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile.  That  is  all.  It  is  a  mere  matter 
of  policy ;  there  is  a  perfect  right,  according  to  interest,  to  do  just  as  you  please, 
—  when  this  is  done,  where  tliis  doctrine  prevails,  the  miners  and  sappers  will 
have  formed  public  opinion  for  the  slave  trade.  They  will  be  ready  for  Jeff. 
Davis  and  Stephens  and  other  leaders  of  that  company  to  sound  the  bugle  for 
the  revival  of  the  slave-trade,  for  the  second  Dred  Scott  decision,  for  the  flood 
of  slavery  to  be  poured  over  the  Free  States,  while  we  shall  be  here  tied  down 
and  helpless  and  run  over  like  sheep. 

It  is  to  be  a  part  and  parcel  of  this  same  idea,  to  say  to  men  who  want  to 
adhere  to  the  Democratic  party,  who  have  always  belonged  to  that  party,  and 
are  only  looking  about  for  some  excuse  to  stick  to  it,  but  nevertheless  hate 
slavery,  that  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty  is  as  good  a  way  as  any  to  oppose 
slavery.  They  allow  themselves  to  be  persuaded  easily,  in  accordance  with 
their  previous  dispositions,  into  this  belief,  that  it  is  about  as  good  a  way  of 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  299 

opposing  slavery  as  any,  and  we  can  do  that  without  straining  our  old  party  ties 
or  breaking  up  old  political  associations.  We  can  do  so  without  being  called 
negro  worshippers.  We  can  do  that  without  being  subjected  to  the  jibes  and 
sneers  that  are  so  readily  thrown  out  in  place  of  argument  where  no  argument 
can  be  found.  So  let  us  stick  to  this  popular  sovereignty,  —  this  insidious 
popular  sovereignty.  Now  let  me  call  your  attention  to  one  thing  that  has 
really  happened,  which  shows  this  gradual  and  steady  debauching  of  public 
opinion,  this  course  of  preparation  for  the  revival  of  the  slave-trade,  for  the 
Territorial  slave  code,  and  the  new  Dred  Scott  decision  that  is  to  carry  slavery 
into  the  Free  States.  Did  you  ever,  five  years  ago,  liear  of  anybody  in  the 
world  saying  that  the  negro  had  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  National  Inde- 
pendence ;  that  it  did  not  mean  negroes  at  all ;  and  when  "  all  men "  were 
spoken  of,  negroes  were  not  included  ? 

I  am  satisfied  that  five  years  ago  that  proposition  was  not  put  upon  paper 
by  any  living  being  anywhere.  I  have  been  unable  at  any  time  to  find  a  man 
in  an  audience  who  would  declare  that  he  had  ever  known  of  anybody  saying 
so  five  years  ago.  But  last  year  there  was  not  a  Douglas  popular  sovereign  in 
Illinois  who  did  not  say  it.  Is  there  one  in  Ohio  but  declares  his  firin  belief 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  did  not  mean  negroes  at  all  ?  I  do  not 
know  how  this  is ;  I  have  not  been  here  much ;  but  I  presume  you  are  very 
much  alike  everywhere.  Then  I  suppose  that  all  now  express  the  belief  that 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  never  did  mean  negroes.  I  call  upon  one  of 
them  to  say  that  he  said  it  five  years  ago. 

If  you  think  that  now,  and  did  not  think  it  then,  the  next  thing  that  strikes 
me  is  to  remark  that  there  has  been  a  change  wrought  in  you,  —  and  a  very 
significant  change  it  is,  being  no  less  than  changing  the  negro,  in  your  estima- 
tion, from  the  rank  of  a  man  to  that  of  a  brute.  They  are  taking  him  down, 
and  placing  him,  when  spoken  of,  among  reptiles  and  crocodiles,  as  Judge 
Douglas  himself  expresses  it. 

Is  not  this  change  wrought  in  your  minds  a  very  important  change'? 
Public  opinion  in  this  country  is  everything.  In  a  nation  like  ours,  this 
popular  sovereignty  and  squatter  sovereignty  have  already  wrought  a  change 
in  the  public  mind  to  the  extent  I  have  stated.  There  is  no  man  in  this  crowd 
who  can  contradict  it. 

Now,  if  you  are  opposed  to  slavery  honestly,  as  much  as  anybod}^  I  ask  you 
to  note  that  fact,  and  the  like  of  which  is  to  follow,  to  be  plastered  on,  layer 
after  layer,  until  very  soon  you  are  prepared  to  deal  with  the  negro  everywhere 
as  with  the  brute.  If  public  sentiment  has  not  been  debauched  already  to  this 
point,  a  new  turn  of  the  screw  in  that  direction  is  all  that  is  wanting ;  and 
this  is  constantly  being  done  by  the  teachers  of  this  insidious  popular  sover- 
eignty. You  need  but  one  or  two  turns  further,  until  your  minds,  now  ripen- 
ing under  these  teachings,  will  be  ready  for  all  these  things,  and  you  will 
receive  and  support,  or  submit  to,  the  slave-trade,  revived  with  all  its  horrors, 
a  slave-code  enforced  in  our  Territories,  and  a  new  Dred  Scott  decision  to  bring 
slavery  up  into  the  very  heart  of  the  free  North.  This,  I  must  say,  is  but 
carrying  out  those  words  prophetically  spoken  by  Mr.  Clay,  —  many,  many 
years  ago,  —  I  believe  more  than  thirty  years,  —  when  he  told  an  audience  that 
if  they  would  repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation, 
they  must  go  back  to  the  era  of  our  independence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon 
which  thundered  its  annual  joyous  return  on  the  Fourth  of  July ;  they  must 
blow  out  the  moral  lights  around  us ;  they  must  penetrate  the  human  soul, 
and  eradicate  the  love  of  liberty :  but  until  they  did  these  things,  and  others 


300  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABliAHAM   LINCOLN 

eloquently  enumerated  by  him,  they  could  not  repress  all  tendencies  to  ultimate 
emancipation. 

I  ask  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  a  pre-eminent  degree  these  popular  sover- 
eigns are  at  this  work,  blowing  out  the  moral  lights  around  us ;  teaching  that  the 
negro  is  no  longer  a  man,  but  a  brute ;  that  the  Declaration  has  nothing  to  do 
with  him ;  that  he  ranks  with  the  crocodile  and  the  reptile ;  that  man,  with 
body  and  soul,  is  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents.  I  suggest  to  this  portion  of 
the  Ohio  liepublicans,  or  Democrats,  if  there  be  any  present,  the  serious  con- 
sideration of  this  fact  that  there  is  now  going  on  among  you  a  steady  process 
of  debauching  public  opinion  on  this  subject.  "With  this,  my  friends,  I  bid 
you  adieu. 


SPEECH   OF   HON.   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN, 

At  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September,  1859. 

My  Fellow-Citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio  :  This  is  the  first  time  in 
my  life  that  I  have  appeared  before  an  audience  in  so  great  a  city  as  this. 
I  therefore  —  though  I  am  no  longer  a  young  man  —  make  this  appearance 
under  some  degree  of  embarrassment.  But  I  have  found  that  when  one  is 
embarrassed,  usually  the  shortest  way  to  get  through  with  it  is  to  quit  talking 
or  thinking  about  it,  and  go  at  something  else. 

I  understand  that  you  have  had  recently  with  you  my  very  distinguished 
friend,  Judge  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  and  I  understand,  without  having  had  an 
opportunity  (not  greatly  sought,  to  be  sure)  of  seeing  a  report  of  the  speech 
that  he  made  here,  that  he  did  me  the  honor  to  mention  my  humble  name. 
I  suppose  that  he  did  so  for  the  purpose  of  making  some  objection  to  some 
sentiment  at  some  time  expressed  by  me.  I  should  expect,  it  is  true,  that 
Judge  Douglas  had  reminded  you,  or  informed  you,  if  you  had  never  before 
heard  it,  that  I  had  once  in  my  life  declared  it  as  my  opinion-  that  this 
government  cannot  "  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free ;  that  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,"  and,  as  I  had  expressed  it,  I  did 
not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  that  I  did  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved ; 
but  that  I  did  expect  that  it  would  cease  to  be  divided,  that  it  would  become 
all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other,  that  either  the  opposition  of  slavery  would 
arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  would  rest 
in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  the  friends  of 
slavery  will  push  it  forward  until  it  becomes  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States, 
old  or  new,  free  as  well  as  slave.  I  did,  fifteen  months  ago,  express  that 
opinion,  and  upon  many  occasions  Judge  Douglas  has  denounced  it,  and  has 
greatly,  intentionally  or  unintentionally,  misrepresented  my  purpose  in  the 
expression  of  that  opinion. 

I  presume,  without  having  seen  a  report  of  his  speech,  that  he  did  so  here. 
I  presume  that  he  alluded  also  to  that  opinion,  in  different  language,  having 
been  expressed  at  a  subsequent  time  by  Governor  Seward  of  New  York,  and 
that  he  took  the  two  in  a  lump  and  denounced  them  ;  that  he  tried  to  point 
out  that  there  was  something  couched  in  this  opinion  which  led  to  the  making 
of  an  entire  uniformity  of  the  local  institutions  of  the  various  States  of  the 
Union,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  different  States,  which  in  their  nature  would 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  301 

seem  to  require  a  variety  of  institutions  and  a  variety  of  laws,  conforming  to 
the  differences  in  the  nature  of  the  different  States. 

Not  only  so,  I  presume  he  insisted  that  this  was  a  declaration  of  war 
between  tlie  Free  and  Slave  States,  —  that  it  was  the  sounding  to  the  onset  of 
continual  war  between  the  different  States,  the  Slave  and  Free  States. 

This  charge,  in  this  form,  was  made  by  Judge  Douglas  on,  I  believe,  the 
9th  of  July,  1858,  in  Chicago,  in  my  hearing.  On  the  next  evening,  I  made 
some  reply  to  it.  I  informed  him  that  many  of  the  inferences  he  drew  from 
that  expression  of  mine  were  altogether  foreign  to  any  purpose  entertained  by 
me,  and  in  so  far  as  he  should  ascribe  these  inferences  to  me,  as  my  purpose, 
he  was  entirely  mistaken ;  and  in  so  far  as  he  might  argue  that  whatever 
might  be  my  purpose,  actions,  conforming  to  my  views,  would  lead  to  these 
results,  he  might  argue  and  establish  if  he  could  ;  but,  so  far  as  purposes  were 
concerned,  he  was  totally  mistaken  as  to  me. 

Wlien  I  made  that  reply  to  him,  when  I  told  him,  on  the  question  of 
declaring  war  between  the  different  States  of  the  Union,  that  I  had  not  said 
that  I  did  not  expect  any  peace  upon  this  question  until  slavery  was  exter- 
minated ;  that  I  had  only  said  I  expected  peace  when  that  institution  was  put 
where  the  public  mind  should  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  was  in  course  of 
ultimate  extinction  ;  that  I  believed,  from  the  organization  of  our  government 
until  a  very  recent  period  of  time,  the  institution  had  been  placed  and  con- 
tinued upon  such  a  basis  ;  tliat  we  had  had  comparative  peace  upon  that 
question  througli  a  portion  of  that  period  of  time,  only  because  the  public 
mind  rested  in  that  belief  in  regard  to  it,  and  that  when  we  returned  to  that 
position  in  relation  to  that  matter,  I  supposed  we  should  again  have  peace  as 
we  previously  had.  I  assured  him,  as  I  now  assure  you,  that  I  neither  then 
had,  nor  have,  or  ever  had,  any  purpose  in  any  way  of  interfering  with  the 
institution  of  slavery,  where  it  exists.  I  believe  we  have  no  power,  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  rather  under  the  form  of  government 
under  which  we  live,  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  any  other 
of  the  institutions  of  our  sister  States,  be  they  Free  or  Slave  States.  I  declared 
then,  and  I  now  re-declare,  that  I  have  as  little  inclination  to  interfere  with 
the  institution  of  slavery  where  it  now  exists,  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  General  Government,  or  any  other  instrumentality,  as  I  believe  we  have 
no  power  to  do  so.  I  accidentally  used  this  expression :  I  had  no  purpose  of 
entering  into  the  Slave  States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery !  So,  upon  the 
first  occasion  that  Judge  Douglas  got  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  me,  he  passed 
by  the  whole  body  of  what  I  had  said  upon  that  subject,  and  seized  upon  the 
particular  expression  of  mine  that  I  had  no  purpose  of  entering  into  the  Slave 
States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery.  "  Oh,  no,"  said  he,  "  he  [Lincoln] 
won't  enter  into  the  Slave  States  to  disturb  the  institution  of  slavery,  —  he  is 
too  prudent  a  man  to  do  such  a  thing  as  that ;  he  only  means  that  he  will  go 
on  to  the  line  between  the  Free  and  Slave  States,  and  shoot  over  at  them. 
This  is  all  he  means  to  do.  He  means  to  do  them  all  the  harm  he  can,  to 
disturb  them  all  he  can,  in  such  a  way  as  to  keep  his  own  hide  in  perfect 
safety." 

Well,  now,  I  did  not  think,  at  that  time,  that  that  was  either  a  very 
dignified  or  very  logical  argument ;  but  so  it  was,  I  had  to  get  along  with  it 
as  well  as  I  could. 

It  has  occurred  to  me  here  to-night  that  if  I  ever  do  shoot  over  the 
line  at  the  people  on  the  other  side  of  the  line  into  a  Slave  State,  and  pur- 
pose to  do  so,  keeping  my  skin  safe,  that  I  have  now  about  the  best  chance  I 


302  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

shall  ever  have.  I  should  not  wonder  that  there  are  some  Kentuckians  about 
this  audience  ;  we  are  close  to  Kentucky ;  and  whether  that  be  so  or  not,  we 
are  on  elevated  ground,  and,  by  speaking  distinctly,  I  should  not  wonder  if 
some  of  the  Kentuckians  would  hear  me  on  the  other  side  of  the  river.  For 
that  reason  I  propose  to  address  a  portion  of  what  I  have  to  say  to  the 
Kentuckians. 

I  say,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  Kentuckians,  that  I  am  what  they  call, 
as  I  understand  it,  a  "  Black  Eepublican."  I  think  slavery  is  wrong,  morally 
and  politically.  I  desire  that  it  should  be  no  further  spread  in  these  United 
States,  and  I  should  not  object  if  it  should  gradually  terminate  in  the  whole 
Union.  While  I  say  this  for  myself,  I  say  to  you  Kentuckians  that  I 
understand  you  differ  radically  with  me  upon  this  proposition ;  that  you 
believe  slavery  is  a  good  thing ;  that  slavery  is  right ;  that  it  ought  to  be 
extended  and  perpetuated  in  this  Union.  Now,  there  being  this  broad  differ- 
ence between  us,  I  do  not  pretend,  in  addressing  myself  to  you  Kentuckians, 
to  attempt  proselyting  you ;  that  would  be  a  vain  effort.  I  do  not  enter 
upon  it.  I  only  propose  to  try  to  show  you  that  you  ought  to  nominate  for 
the  next  Presidency,  at  Charleston,  my  distinguished  friend  Judge  Douglas. 
In  all  that  there  is  a  difference  between  you  and  him,  I  understand  he  is 
sincerely  for  you,  and  more  wisely  for  you  than  you  are  for  yourselves.  I 
will  try  to  demonstrate  that  proposition.  Understand,  now,  I  say  that  I 
believe  he  is  as  sincerely  for  you,  and  more  wisely  for  you,  than  you  are  for 
yourselves. 

What  do  you  want  more  than  anything  else  to  make  successful  your  views 
of  slavery,  —  to  advance  the  outspread  of  it,  and  to  secure  and  perpetuate 
the  nationality  of  it  ?  What  do  you  want  more  than  anything  else  ?  What 
is  needed  absolutely  ?  What  is  indispensable  to  you  ?  Why  !  if  I  may  be 
allowed  to  answer  the  question,  it  is  to  retain  a  hold  upon  the  North,  —  it  is 
to  retain  support  and  strength  from  the  Free  States.  If  you  can  get  this 
support  and  strength  from  the  Free  States,  you  can  succeed.  If  you  do  not 
get  this  support  and  this  strength  from  the  Free  States,  you  are  in  the  minor- 
ity, and  you  are  beaten  at  once. 

If  that  proposition  be  admitted,  —  and  it  is  undeniable,  —  then  the  next 
thing  I  say  to  you  is,  that  Douglas,  of  all  the  men  in  this  nation,  is  the  only 
man  that  affords  you  any  hold  upon  the  Free  States ;  that  no  other  man  can 
give  you  any  strength  in  the  Free  States.  This  being  so,  if  you  doubt  the 
other  branch  of  the  proposition,  whether  he  is  for  you,  —  whether  he  is  really 
for  you,  as  I  have  expressed  it,  —  I  propose  asking  your  attention  for  a  while 
to  a  few  facts. 

The  issue  between  you  and  me,  understand,  is,  that  I  think  slavery  is 
wrong,  and  ought  not  to  be  outspread ;  and  you  think  it  is  right,  and  ought 
to  be  extended  and  perpetuated.  [A  voice,  "  Oh,  Lord."]  That  is  my  Ken- 
tuckian  I  am  talking  to  now. 

I  now  proceed  to  try  to  show  you  that  Douglas  is  as  sincerely  for  you  and 
more  wisely  for  you  than  you  are  for  yourselves. 

In  the  first  place,  we  know  that  in  a  government  like  this,  in  a  government 
of  the  people,  where  the  voice  of  all  the  men  of  the  country,  substantially, 
enters  into  the  execution  —  or  administration,  rather  —  of  the  government,  — 
in  such  a  government,  what  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  of  it  is  public  opinion. 
I  lay  down  the  proposition,  that  Judge  Douglas  is  not  onl}^  the  man  that 
promises  you  in  advance  a  hold  upon  the  North,  and  support  in  the  North, 
but  that  he  constantly   moulds  public  opinion  to  your  ends;  that  in  every 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  303 

possible  way  he  can,  be  constantly  moulds  tbe  public  opinion  of  the  North 
to  your  ends  ;  and  if  there  are  a  few  things  in  which  he  seems  to  be  against 
you,  —  a  few  things  which  he  says  that  appear  to  be  against  you,  and  a  few 
that  he  forbears  to  say  which  you  would  like  to  have  him  say,  —  you  ought 
to  remember  that  the  saying  of  the  one,  or  the  forbearing  to  say  the  other, 
would  lose  his  hold  upon  the  North,  and,  by  consequence,  would  lose  his 
capacity  to  serve  you. 

Upon  this  subject  of  moulding  public  opinion  I  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  —  for  a  well-established  fact  it  is  —  that  the  Judge  never  says  your  insti- 
tution of  slavery  is  wrong ;  he  never  says  it  is  right,  to  be  sure,  but  he  never 
says  it  is  wrong.  There  is  not  a  public  man  in  the  United  States,  I  believe, 
with  the  exception  of  Senator  Douglas,  who  has  not,  at  some  time  in  his  life, 
declared  his  opinion  whether  the  thing  is  right  or  wrong  ;  but  Senator  Douglas 
never  declares  it  is  wrong.  He  leaves  himself  at  perfect  liberty  to  do  all  in 
your  favor  which  he  would  be  hindered  from  doing  if  he  were  to  declare  the 
thing  to  be  wrong.  On  the  contrary,  he  takes  all  the  chances  that  he  has  for 
inveigling  the  sentiment  of  the  North,  opposed  to  slavery,  into  your  support, 
by  never  saying  it  is  right.  This  you  ought  to  set  down  to  his  credit.  You 
ought  to  give  him  full  credit  for  this  mucli,  little  though  it  be,  in  comparison 
to  the  whole  which  he  does  for  you. 

Some  other  things  I  will  ask  your  attention  to.  He  said  upon  the  floor  of 
the  United  States  Senate,  and  he  has  repeated  it,  as  I  understand,  a  great 
many  times,  that  he  does  not  care  whether  slavery  is  "  voted  up  or  voted 
down."  This  again  shows  you,  or  ought  to  show  you,  if  you  would  reason 
upon  it,  that  he  does  not  believe  it  to  be  wrong ;  for  a  man  may  say,  when  he 
sees  nothing  wrong  in  a  thing,  that  he  does  not  care  whether  it  be  voted  up 
or  voted  down,  but  no  man  can  logically  say  that  he  cares  not  whether  a  thing 
goes  up  or  goes  down,  which  to  him  appears  to  be  wrong.  You  therefore 
have  a  demonstration  in  this  that  to  Judge  Douglas's  mind  your  favorite  insti- 
tution, which  you  would  have  spread  out  and  made  perpetual,  is  no  wrong. 

Another  thing  he  tells  you,  in  a  speech  made  at  Memphis,  in  Tennessee, 
shortly  after  the  canvass  in  Illinois,  last  year.  He  there  distinctly  told  the 
people  that  there  was  a  "line  drawn  by  the  Almighty  across  this  continent, 
on  the  one  side  of  which  the  soil  must  always  be  cultivated  by  slaves  ;  "  that 
he  did  not  pretend  to  know  exactly  where  that  line  was,  but  that  there  was 
such  a  line.  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to  that  proposition  again  :  that 
there  is  one  portion  of  this  continent  where  the  Almighty  has  designed  the 
soil  shall  always  be  cultivated  by  slaves  ;  that  its  being  cultivated  by  slaves 
at  that  place  is  right;  that  it  has  the  direct  sympathy  and  authority  of  the 
Almighty.  Whenever  you  can  get  these  Northern  audiences  to  adopt  the 
opinion  that  slavery  is  right  on  the  other  side  of  the  Ohio ;  whenever  you  can 
get  them,  in  pursuance  of  Douglas's  views,  to  adopt  that  sentiment,  they  will 
very  readily  make  the  other  argument,  which  is  perfectly  logical,  that  that 
wdiich  is  right  on  that  side  of  the  Ohio  cannot  be  wrong  on  this,  and  that  if 
you  have  that  property  on  that  side  of  the  Ohio,  under  the  seal  and  stamp  of 
the  Almighty,  when  by  any  means  it  escapes  over  here  it  is  wrong  to  have 
constitutions  and  laws  "  to  devil  "  you  about  it.  So  Douglas  is  moulding  the 
public  opinion  of  the  North,  first  to  say  that  the  thing  is  right  in  your  State 
over  the  Ohio  Eiver,  and  hence  to  say  that  that  which  is  right  there  is  not 
wrong  here,  and  that  all  laws  and  constitutions  here,  recognizing  it  as  being 
wrong,  are  themselves  wrong,  and  ought  to  be  repealed  and  abrogated.  He 
will  tell  you,  men  of  Ohio,  that  if  you  choose  here  to  have  laws  against 


304  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

slavery,  it  is  in  conformity  to  the  idea  that  your  climate  is  not  suited  to  it, 
that  your  climate  is  not  suited  to  slave  labor,  and  therefore  you  have  constitu- 
tions and  laws  against  it. 

Let  us  attend  to  that  argument  for  a  little  while,  and  see  if  it  be  sound. 
You  do  not  raise  sugar-cane  (except  the  new-fashioned  sugar-cane,  and  you 
won't  raise  that  long),  but  they  do  raise  it  in  Louisiana.  You  don't  raise  it  in 
Ohio,  because  you  can't  raise  it  profitably,  because  the  climate  don't  suit  it. 
They  do  raise  it  in  Louisiana,  because  there  it  is  profitable.  Now,  Douglas 
will  tell  you  that  is  precisely  the  slavery  question :  that  they  do  have  slaves 
there,  because  they  are  profitable  ;  and  you  don't  have  them  here,  because 
they  are  not  profitable.  If  that  is  so,  then  it  leads  to  dealing  with  the  one 
precisely  as  with  the  other.  Is  there,  then,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or 
laws  of  Ohio  against  raising  sugar-cane  ?  Have  you  found  it  necessary  to  put 
any  such  provision  in  your  law  ?  Surely  not !  No  man  desires  to  raise  sugar- 
cane in  Ohio,  but  if  any  man  did  desire  to  do  so,  you  would  say  it  was  a 
tyrannical  law  that  forbids  his  doing  so ;  and  whenever  you  shall  agree  with 
Douglas,  whenever  your  minds  are  brought  to  adopt  his  argument,  as  surely 
you  will  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  although  slavery  is  not  profitable  in 
Ohio,  if  any  man  wants  it,  it  is  wrong  to  him  not  to  let  him  have  it. 

In  this  matter  Judge  Douglas  is  preparing  the  public  mind  for  you  of 
Kentucky  to  make  perpetual  that  good  thing  in  your  estimation,  about  which 
you  and  I  differ. 

In  this  connection,  let  me  ask  your  attention  to  another  thing.  I  believe 
it  is  safe  to  assert  that  five  years  ago  no  living  man  had  expressed  the  opinion 
that  the  negro  had  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Let  me 
state  that  again  :  five  years  ago  no  living  man  had  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  negro  had  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If  there  is  in 
this  large  audience  any  man  who  ever  knew  of  that  opinion  being  put  upon 
paper  as  much  as  five  years  ago,  I  wall  be  obliged  to  him  now  or  at  a  subse- 
quent time  to  show  it. 

If  that  be  true  I  wish  you  then  to  note  the  next  fact :  that  within  the 
space  of  five  years  Senator  Douglas,  in  the  argument  of  this  question,  has  got 
his  entire  party,  so  far  as  I  know,  without  exception,  to  join  in  saying  that 
the  negro  has  no  share  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If  there  be  now 
in  all  these  United  States  one  Douizlas  man  that  does  not  sav  this,  I  have 
been  unable  upon  any  occasion  to  scare  him  up.  Now,  if  none  of  you  said 
this  five  years  ago,  and  all  of  you  say  it  now,  that  is  a  matter  that  you  Ken- 
tuckians  ought  to  note.  That  is  a  vast  change  in  the  Northern  public  senti- 
ment upon  that  question. 

Of  what  tendency  is  that  change  ?  The  tendency  of  that  change  is  to 
bring  the  public  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  when  men  are  spoken  of,  the 
negro  is  not  meant ;  that  when  negroes  are  spoken  of,  brutes  alone  are  con- 
templated. That  change  in  public  sentiment  has  already  degraded  the  black 
man  in  the  estimation  of  Douglas  and  his  followers  from  the  condition  of  a 
man  of  some  sort,  and  assigned  him  to  the  condition  of  a  brute.  Now,  you 
Kentuckians  ought  to  give  Douglas  credit  for  this.  That  is  the  largest  pos- 
sible stride  that  can  be  made  in  regard  to  the  perpetuation  of  your  thing  of 
slavery. 

A  voice  :  Speak  to  Ohio  men,  and  not  to  Kentuckians  ! 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  I  beg  permission  to  speak  as  I  please. 

lu  Kentucky  perhaps,  in  many  of  the  Slave  States  certainly,  you  are  trying 
to  establish  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  by  reference  to  the  Bible.     You  are 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  805 

trying  to  show  that  slavery  existed  in  the  Bible  times  by  divine  ordinance. 
Now,  Douglas  is  wiser  than  you,  for  your  own  benefit,  upon  that  subject. 
Doughas  knows  that  whenever  you  establish  that  slavery  was  right  by  the 
Bible,  it  will  occur  that  that  slavery  was  the  slavery  of  the  white  man,  —  of 
men  without  reference  to  color  ;  and  he  knows  very  well  that  you  may  enter- 
tain that  idea  in  Kentucky  as  much  as  you  please,  but  you  will  never  win  any 
Northern  support  upon  it.  He  makes  a  wiser  argument  for  you  :  he  makes 
the  argument  that  the  slavery  of  the  hlack  man,  the  slavery  of  the  man  who 
has  a  skin  of  a  different  color  from  your  own,  is  right.  He  thereby  brings  to 
your  support  Northern  voters  who  could  not  for  a  moment  be  brought  by  your 
own  arg[ument  of  the  Bible-right  of  slaverv.  Will  vou  not  give  him  credit 
for  that  ?  Will  you  not  say  that  in  this  matter  he  is  more  wisely  for  you  than 
you  are  for  yourselves  ? 

Now,  having  established  with  his  entire  party  this  doctrine,  having  been 
entirely  successful  in  that  branch  of  his  efibrts  in  your  behalf,  he  is  ready  for 
another. 

At  this  same  meeting  at  Memphis  he  declared  that  while  in  all  contests 
between  the  nec^ro  and  the  white  man  he  was  for  the  white  man,  but  that  in 
all  questions  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile  he  was  for  the  negro.  He  did 
not  make  that  declaration  accidentally  at  Memphis.  He  made  it  a  great  many 
times  in  the  canvass  in  Illinois  last  year  (though  I  don't  know  that  it  was 
reported  in  any  of  his  speeches  there),  but  he  frequently  made  it.  I  believe 
he  repeated  it  at  Columbus,  and  I  should  not  wonder  if  he  repeated  it  here. 
It  is,  then,  a  deliberate  way  of  expressing  himself  upon  that  subject.  It  is  a 
matter  of  mature  deliberation  with  him  thus  to  express  himself  upon  that 
point  of  his  case.     It  therefore  requires  some  deliberate  attention. 

The  first  inference  seems  to  be  that  if  you  do  not  enslave  the  negro,  you 
are  wronging  the  white  man  in  some  way  or  other,  and  that  whoever  is  opposed 
to  the  negro  being  enslaved,  is,  in  some  way  or  other,  against  the  white  man. 
Is  not  that  a  falsehood  ?  If  there  was  a  necessary  conflict  between  the  white 
man  and  the  negro,  I  should  be  for  the  white  man  as  much  as  Judge  Douglas ; 
but  I  say  there  is  no  such  necessary  conflict.  I  say  that  there  is  room  enough 
for  us  all  to  be  free,  and  that  it  not  only  does  not  wrong  the  white  man  that 
the  negro  should  be  free,  but  it  positively  wrongs  the  mass  of  the  white  men 
that  the  negro  should  be  enslaved ;  that  the  mass  of  w^hite  men  are  really 
injured  by  the  effects  of  slave  labor  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fields  of  their 
own  labor. 

But  I  do  not  desire  to  dwell  upon  this  branch  of  the  question  more  than 
to  say  that  this  assumption  of  his  is  false,  and  I  do  hope  that  that  fallacy  will 
not  long  prevail  in  the  minds  of  intelligent  white  men.  At  all  events,  you 
ought  to  thank  Judge  Douglas  for  it ;  it  is  for  your  benefit  it  is  made. 

The  other  branch  of  it  is,  that  in  a  struggle  between  the  negro  and  the 
ci'ocodile,  he  is  for  the  negro.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  there  is  any  struggle 
between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile,  either.  I  suppose  that  if  a  crocodile  (or, 
as  we  old  Ohio  River  boatmen  used  to  call  them,  alligators)  should  come  across 
a  white  man,  he  would  kill  him  if  he  could,  and  so  he  would  a  negro.  But 
what,  at  last,  is  this  proposition  ?  I  believe  that  it  is  a  sort  of  proposition  in 
proportion,  which  may  be  stated  thus  :  "  As  the  negro  is  to  the  white  man,  so 
is  the  crocodile  to  the  negro ;  and  as  the  negro  may  rightfully  treat  the  croco- 
dile as  a  beast  or  reptile,  so  the  white  man  may  rightfull}^  treat  the  negro  as  a 
beast  or  a  reptile."     That  is  really  the  "  knip  "  of  all  that  argument  of  his. 

Now,  my  brother  Kentuckians,  who  believe  in  this,  you  ought  to  thank 

39 


306  DEBATES   BETWEEN   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

Judge  Douglas  for  having  put  that  in  a  much  more  taking  way  than  any  of 
yourselves  have  done. 

Again,  Douglas's  great  principle,  "Popular  Sovereignty,"  as  he  calls  it,  gives 
you,  by  natural  consequence,  the  revival  of  the  slave-trade  whenever  you 
want  it.  If  you  question  this,  listen  awhile,  consider  awhile  what  I  shall 
advance  in  support  of  that  proposition. 

He  says  that  it  is  the  sacred  riglit  of  the  man  who  goes  into  the  Territories 
to  have  slavery  if  he  wants  it.  Grant  that  for  argument's  sake.  Is  it  not  the 
sacred  right  of  the  man  who  don't  go  there  equally  to  buy  slaves  in  Africa,  if 
he  wants  them  ?  Can  you  point  out  the  difference  ?  The  man  who  goes  into 
the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  or  any  other  new  Territory,  with  the 
sacred  right  of  taking  a  slave  there  which  belongs  to  him,  would  certainly 
have  no  more  right  to  take  one  there  than  I  would,  who  own  no  slave, 
but  who  would  desire  to  buy  one  and  take  him  there.  You  will  not  say 
—  you,  the  friends  of  Judge  Douglas  —  but  that  the  man  who  does  not  own 
a  slave  has  an  equal  right  to  buy  one  and  take  him  to  the  Territory  as  the 
other  does  ? 

A  voice :   I  want  to  ask  a  question.     Don't  foreign  nations  interfere  with 
the  slave-trade  ? 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  Well !  I  understand  it  to  be  a  principle  of  Democracy  to 
whip  foreign  nations  whenever  they  interfere  with  us. 

Voice :    I  only  asked  for  information.     I  am  a  Eepublican  myself. 

Mr.  Lincoln  :  You  and  I  will  be  on  the  best  terms  in  the  world,  but  I  do 
not  wish  to  be  diverted  from  the  point  I  was  trying  to  press. 

I  say  that  Douglas's  Popular  Sovereignty,  establishing  his  sacred  right  in 
the  people,  if  you  please,  if  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion  gives  equally  the 
sacred  right  to  the  people  of  the  States  or  the  Territories  themselves  to  buy 
slaves  wherever  they  can  buy  them  cheapest ;  and  if  any  man  can  show  a 
distinction,  I  should  like  to  hear  hira  try  it.  If  any  man  can  show  how  the 
people  of  Kansas  have  a  better  right  to  slaves,  because  they  want  them,  than 
the  people  of  Georgia  have  to  buy  them  in  Africa,  I  want  him  to  do  it.  I  think 
it  cannot  be  done.  If  it  is  "  Popular  Sovereignty "  for  the  people  to  have 
slaves  because  they  want  them,  it  is  Popular  Sovereignty  for  them  to  buy  them 
in  Africa  because  they  desire  to  do  so. 

I  know  that  Douglas  has  recently  made  a  little  effort,  —  not  seeming  to 
notice  that  he  had  a  different  theory,  —  has  made  an  effort  to  get  rid  of  that. 
He  has  written  a  letter,  addressed  to  somebody,  I  believe,  who  resides  in  Iowa, 
declaring  his  opposition  to  the  repeal  of  the  laws  that  prohibit  the  African 
slave-trade.  He  bases  his  opposition  to  such  repeal  upon  the  ground  that 
these  laws  are  themselves  one  of  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Now,  it  would  be  very  interesting  to  see  Judge  Douglas  or 
any  of  his  friends  turn  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  point  out 
that  compromise,  to  show  where  there  is  any  compromise  in  the  Constitution, 
or  provision  in  the  Constitution,  express  or  implied,  by  which  the  adminis- 
trators of  that  Constitution  are  under  any  obligation  to  repeal  the  African 
slave-trade.  I  know,  or  at  least  I  think  I  know,  that  the  framers  of  that  Con- 
stitution did  expect  that  the  African  slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  the  end 
of  twenty  years,  to  which  time  their  prohibition  against  its  being  abolished 
extended.  I  think  there  is  abundant  cotemporaneous  history  to  show  that  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  expected  it  to  be  abolished.  But  while  they  so 
expected,  they  gave  nothing  for  that  expectation,  and  they  put  no  provision  in 
the  Constitution  requiring  it  should  be  so  abolished.     The  migration  or  importa- 


AND   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS.  307 

tion  of  sucli  persons  as  the  States  shall  see  fit  to  admit  shall  not  be  prohibited, 
but  a  certain  tax  might  be  levied  upon  such  importation.  But  what  was  to  be 
done  after  that  time  ?  The  Constitution  is  as  silent  about  that  as  it  is  silent, 
personally,  about  myself.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  it  about  that  subject ; 
there  is  only  the  expectation  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  that  the 
slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  the  end  of  that  time ;  and  they  expected  it 
would  be  abolished,  owing  to  public  sentiment,  before  that  time  ;  and  they  put 
that  provision  in,  in  order  that  it  should  not  be  abolished  before  that  time,  for 
reasons  which  I  suppose  they  thought  to  be  sound  ones,  but  which  1  will  not 
now  try  to  enumerate  before  you. 

But  while  they  expected  the  slave-trade  would  be  abolished  at  that  time, 
they  expected  that  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  new  Territories  should  also 
be  restricted.  It  is  as  easy  to  prove  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  expected  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited  from  extending 
into  the  new  Territories,  as  it  is  to  prove  that  it  was  expected  that  the  slave- 
trade  should  be  abolished.  Both  these  things  were  expected.  One  was  no 
more  expected  than  the  other,  and  one  was  no  more  a  compromise  of  the 
Constitution  than  the  other.  There  was  nothing  said  in  the  Constitution  in 
regard  to  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the  Territory.  I  grant  that ;  but  there 
was  something  very  important  said  about  it  by  the  same  generation  of  men  in 
the  adoption  of  the  old  Ordinance  of  '87,  through  the  influence  of  which  you 
here  in  Ohio,  our  neighbors  in  Indiana,  we  in  Illinois,  our  neighbors  in  Michigan 
and  Wisconsin,  are  happy,  prosperous,  teeming  millions  of  free  men.  That 
generation  of  men,  though  not  to  the  full  extent  members  of  the  Convention 
that  framed  the  Constitution,  were  to  some  extent  members  of  that  Convention, 
holding  seats  at  the  same  time  in  one  body  and  the  other,  so  that  if  there 
was  any  compromise  on  either  of  these  subjects,  the  strong  evidence  is  that 
that  compromise  was  in  favor  of  the  restriction  of  slavery  from  the  new 
Territories. 

But  Douglas  says  that  he  is  unalterably  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  those 
laws  ;  because,  in  his  view,  it  is  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution.  You 
Kentuckians,  no  doubt,  are  somewhat  offended  with  that !  You  ought  not  to 
be  !  You  ought  to  be  patient !  You  ought  to  know  that  if  he  said  less  than 
that,  he  would  lose  the  power  of  "  lugging"  the  Northern  States  to  your  sup- 
port. Eeally,  what  you  would  push  him  to  do  would  take  from  him  his  entire 
power  to  serve  you.  And  you  ought  to  remember  how  long,  by  precedent. 
Judge  Douglas  holds  himself  obliged  to  stick  by  compromises.  You  ought  to 
remember  that  by  the  time  you  yourselves  think  you  are  ready  to  inaugurate 
measures  for  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  that  sufficient  time  will 
have  arrived,  by  precedent,  for  Judge  Douglas  to  break  through  that  com- 
promise. He  says  now  nothing  more  strong  than  he  said  in  1849  when  he 
declared  in  favor  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  —  that  precisely  four  years  and 
a  quarter  after  he  declared  that  Compromise  to  be  a  sacred  thing,  which  "  no 
ruthless  hand  would  ever  dare  to  touch,"  he  himself  brought  forward  the 
measure  ruthlessly  to  destroy  it.  By  a  mere  calculation  of  time  it  will  only 
be  four  years  more  until  he  is  ready  to  take  back  his  profession  about  the 
sacredness  of  the  Compromise  abolishing  the  slave-trade.  Precisely  as  soon 
as  you  are  ready  to  have  his  services  in  that  direction,  by  fair  calculation,  you 
may  be  sure  of  having  them. 

But  you  remember  and  set  down  to  Judge  Douglas's  debt,  or  discredit,  that 
he,  last  year,  said  the  people  of  Territories  can,  in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  exclude'  your  slaves  from  those  Territories ;  that  he  declared,  by 


308  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

"  unfriendly  legislation  "  the  extension  of  your  property  into  the  new  Terri- 
tories may  be  cut  off,  in  the  teeth  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States. 

He  assumed  that  position  at  Freeport  on  the  27th  of  August,  1858.  He 
said  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  can  exclude  slavery,  in  so  many  words. 
You  ouccht,  however,  to  bear  in  mind  that  he  has  never  said  it  since.  You 
may  liuut  in  every  speech  that  he  has  since  made,  and  he  has  never  used 
that  expression  once.  He  has  never  seemed  to  notice  that  he  is  stating  his 
views  differently  from  what  he  did  then  ;  but  by  some  sort  of  accident,  he 
has  always  really  stated  it  differently.  He  has  always  since  then  declared 
that  "  the  Constitution  does  not  carry  slavery  into  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  legally  to  control  it,  as  other  property." 
Now,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  language  used  upon  that  former  occasion  and 
in  this  latter  day.  There  may  or  may  not  be  a  difference  in  the  meaning, 
but  it  is  worth  while  considering  whether  there  is  not  also  a  difference  in 
meaning. 

What  is  it  to  exclude  ?  Why,  it  is  to  drive  it  out.  It  is  in  some  way  to 
put  it  out  of  the  Territory.  It  is  to  force  it  across  the  line,  or  change  its 
character  so  that,  as  property,  it  is  out  of  existence.  But  what  is  the  con- 
trolling of  it  "  as  other  property  "  ?  Is  controlling  it  as  other  property  the 
same  thing  as  destroying  it,  or  driving  it  away  ?  I  should  think  not.  I  should 
think  the  controlling  of  it  as  other  property  would  be  just  about  what  you  in 
Kentucky  should  want.  I  understand  the  controlling  of  property  means  the 
controlling  of  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner  of  it.  While  I  have  no  doubt 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  would  say  "  God  speed  "  to  any  of  the 
Territorial  Legislatures  that  should  thus  control  slave  property,  they  would 
sing  quite  a  different  tune  if,  by  the  pretence  of  controlling  it,  they  were  to 
undertake  to  pass  laws  which  virtually  excluded  it,  —  and  that  upon  a  very 
well  known  principle  to  all  lawyers,  that  what  a  Legislature  cannot  directly 
do,  it  cannot  do  by  indirection ;  that  as  the  Legislature  has  not  the  power  to 
drive  slaves  out,  they  have  no  power,  by  indirection,  by  tax,  or  by  imposing  bur- 
dens in  any  way  on  that  property,  to  effect  the  same  end,  and  that  any  attempt 
to  do  so  would  be  held  by  the  Dred  Scott  court  unconstitutional. 

Douglas  is  not  willing  to  stand  by  his  first  proposition  that  they  can  exclude 
it,  because  we  have  seen  that  that  proposition  amounts  to  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  the  naked  absurdity  that  you  may  lawfully  drive  out  that  which  has  a 
lawful  right  to  remain.  He  admitted  at  first  that  the  slave  might  be  lawfully 
taken  into  the  Territories  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  yet 
asserted  that  he  might  be  lawfully  driven  out.  That  being  the  proposition, 
it  is  the  absurdity  I  have  stated.  He  is  not  willing  to  stand  in  the  face  of 
that  direct,  naked,  and  impudent  absurdity ;  he  has,  therefore,  modified  his 
language  into  that  of  being  "  controlled  as  other  pro'perty." 

The  Kentuckians  don't  like  this  in  Douglas !  I  will  tell  you  where  it 
will  go.  He  now  swears  by  the  court.  He  was  once  a  leading  man  in  Illinois 
to  break  down  a  court,  because  it  had  made  a  decision  he  did  not  like.  But 
he  now  not  only  swears  by  the  court,  the  courts  having  got  to  working  for 
you,  but  he  denounces  all  men  that  do  not  swear  by  the  courts,  as  unpatriotic, 
as  bad  citizens.  When  one  of  these  acts  of  unfriendly  legislation  shall  impose 
such  heavy  burdens  as  to,  in  effect,  destroy  property  in  slaves  in  a  Territory, 
and  show  plainly  enough  that  there  can  be  no  mistake  in  the  purpose  of  the 
Legislature  to  make  them  so  burdensome,  this  same  Supreme  Court  will  decide 
that  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  he  will  be  ready  to  say  for  your  benefit 


AND   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS.  C09 

"  I  swear  by  the  court ;  I  give  it  up  ;  "  and  while  that  is  going  on  he  has  been 
getting  all  his  men  to  swear  by  the  courts,  and  to  give  it  up  with  him.  In 
this  again  he  serves  you  faithfully,  and,  as  I  say,  more  wisely  than  you  serve 
yourselves. 

Again :  I  have  alluded  in  the  beginning  of  these  remarks  to  the  fact  that 
Judge  Douglas  has  made  great  complaint  of  my  having  expressed  the  opinion 
that  this  government  "  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free." 
He  has  complained  of  Seward  for  using  different  language,  and  declaring  that 
there  is  an  "  irrepressible  conflict "  between  the  principles  of  free  and  slave 
labor.  [A  voice :  He  says  it  is  not  original  with  Seward.  That  is  original 
with  Lincoln.]  I  will  attend  to  that  immediately,  sir.  Since  that  time,  Hick- 
man of  Pennsylvania  expressed  the  same  sentiment.  He  has  never  denounced 
Mr.  Hickman  :  why  ?  There  is  a  little  chance,  notwithstanding  that  opinion 
in  the  mouth  of  Hickman,  that  he  may  yet  be  a  Douglas  man.  That  is  the 
difference  !  It  is  not  unpatriotic  to  hold  that  opinion  if  a  man  is  a  Douglas 
man. 

But  neither  I,  nor  Seward,  nor  Hickman  is  entitled  to  the  enviable  or  unen- 
viable distinction  of  having  first  expressed  that  idea.  That  same  idea  was 
expressed  by  the  Eichmond  "Enquirer"  in  Virginia,  in  1856,  —  quite  two 
years  before  it  was  expressed  by  the  first  of  us.  And  while  Douglas  was 
pluming  himself  that  in  his  conflict  with  my  humble  self,  last  year,  he  had 
"  squelched  out"  that  fatal  heresy,  as  he  delighted  to  call  it,  and  had  suggested 
that  if  he  only  had  had  a  chance  to  be  in  New  York  and  meet  Seward  he  would 
have  "squelched"  it  there  also,  it  never  occurred  to  him  to  breathe  a  word 
against  Pryor.  I  don't  ihiuk  that  you  can  discover  that  Douglas  ever  talked 
of  going  to  Virginia  to  "  squelch  "  out  that  idea  there.  No.  More  than  that. 
That  same  Ptoger  A.  Pryor  was  brought  to  Washington  City  and  made  the 
editor  of  the  par  excellence  Douglas  paper,  after  making  use  of  that  expression, 
which,  in  us,  is  so  unpatriotic  and  heretical.  From  all  this,  my  Kentucky 
friends  may  see  that  this  opinion  is  heretical  in  his  view  only  when  it  is 
expressed  by  men  suspected  of  a  desire  that  the  country  shall  all  become  free, 
and  not  when  expressed  by  those  fairly  known  to  entertain  the  desire  that  the 
whole  country  shall  become  slave.  When  expressed  by  that  class  of  men, 
it  is  in  nowise  offensive  to  him.  In  this  again,  my  friends  of  Kentucky,  you 
have  Judge  Douglas  with  you. 

There  is  another  reason  why  you  Southern  people  ought  to  nominate 
Douglas  at  your  Convention  at  Charleston.  That  reason  is  the  wonderful 
capacity  of  the  man,  —  the  power  he  has  of  doing  what  would  seem  to  be 
impossible.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  one  of  these  apparently  impossible 
things. 

Douglas  had  three  or  four  very  distinguished  men  of  the  most  extreme 
anti-slavery  views  of  any  men  in  the  Republican  party  expressing  their  desire 
for  his  re-election  to  the  Senate  last  year.  That  would,  of  itself,  have  seemed 
to  be  a  little  wonderful;  but  that  wonder  is  heightened  when  we  see  that  Wise  of 
Virginia,  a  man  exactly  opposed  to  them,  a  man  who  believes  in  the  divine  right 
of  slavery,  was  also  expressing  his  desire  that  Douglas  should  be  re-elected  ; 
that  another  man  that  may  be  said  to  be  kindred  to  Wise,  Mr.  Breckinridge, 
the  Vice-President,  and  of  your  own  State,  was  also  agreeing  with  the  anti- 
slavery  men  in  the  North  that  Douglas  ought  to  be  re-elected.  Still,  to 
heighten  the  wonder,  a  senator  from  Kentucky,  who  I  have  always  loved 
with  an  affection  as  tender  and  endearing  as  I  have  ever  loved  any  man  ; 
who  was  opposed  to  the  anti-slavery  men  for  reasons  which  seemed  sufficient 


310  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

to  him,  and  equally  opposed  to  Wise  and  Breckinridge,  was  writing  letters 
into  Illinois  to  secure  the  re-election  of  Douglas.  Now,  that  all  these  con- 
flicting elements  should  be  brought,  while  at  daggers'  points  with  one  another, 
to  support  him,  is  a  feat  that  is  worthy  for  you  to  note  and  consider.  It  is 
quite  probable  that  each  of  these  classes  of  men  thought,  by  the  re-election 
of  Douglas,  their  peculiar  views  would  gain  something :  it  is  probable  that 
the  anti-slavery  men  thought  their  views  would  gain  something ;  that  Wise 
and  Breckinridge  thought  so  too,  as  regards  their  opinions ;  that  Mr.  Critten- 
den thought  that  his  views  would  gain  something,  although  he  was  opposed 
to  both  these  other  men.  It  is  probable  that  each  and  all  of  them  thought 
that  they  were  using  Douglas  ;  and  it  is  yet  an  unsolved  problem  whether  he 
was  not  using  them  all.  If  he  was,  then  it  is  for  you  to  consider  whether  that 
power  to  perform  w^onders  is  one  for  you  lightly  to  throw  away. 

There  is  one  other  thing  that  I  will  say  to  you,  in  this  relation.  It  is  but 
my  opinion,  I  give  it  to  you  without  a  fee.  It  is  my  opinion  that  it  is  for 
you  to  take  him  or  be  defeated  ;  and  that  if  you  do  take  him  you  may  be 
beaten.  You  will  surely  be  beaten  if  you  do  not  take  him.  We,  the  Eepub- 
licans  and  others  forming  the  opposition  of  the  country,  intend  to  "  stand  by 
our  guns,"  to  be  patient  and  firm,  and  in  the  long  run  to  beat  you,  whether 
you  take  him  or  not.  We  know  that  before  we  fairly  beat  you,  we  have  to 
beat  you  both  together.  We  know  that  you  are  "  all  of  a  feather,"  and  that 
we  have  to  beat  you  altogether,  and  we  expect  to  do  it.  We  don't  intend  to 
be  very  impatient  about  it.  We  mean  to  be  as  deliberate  and  calm  about  it 
as  it  is  possible  to  be,  but  as  firm  and  resolved  as  it  is  possible  for  men  to  be. 
When  we  do  as  we  say,  —  beat  you,  —  you  perhaps  want  to  know  what  we 
will  do   with  you. 

I  will  tell  you,  so  far  as  I  am  authorized  to  speak  for  the  opposition,  what 
we  mean  to  do  with  you.  We  mean  to  treat  you,  as  near  as  we  possibly  can, 
as  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  Madison  treated  you.  We  mean  to  leave  you 
alone,  and  in  no  way  to  interfere  with  your  institution ;  to  abide  by  all  and 
every  compromise  of  the  Constitution,  and,  in  a  word,  coming  back  to  the 
original  proposition,  to  treat  you,  so  far  as  degenerated  men  (if  we  have  de- 
generated) may,  according  to  the  examples  of  those  noble  fathers,  —  Washing- 
ton, Jefferson,  and  Madison.  We  mean  to  remember  that  you  are  as  good  as 
we ;  that  there  is  no  difference  between  us  other  than  the  difference  of  circum- 
stances. We  mean  to  recognize  and  bear  in  mind  always  that  you  have  as 
good  hearts  in  your  bosoms  as  other  people,  or  as  we  claim  to  have,  and  treat 
you  accordingly.  We  mean  to  marry  your  girls  when  we  have  a  chance,  — 
the  white  ones  I  mean ;  and  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  I  once  did 
have  a  chance  in  that  way. 

I  have  told  you  what  we  mean  to  do.  I  want  to  know,  now,  when  that 
thing  takes  place,  what  do  you  mean  to  do.  I  often  hear  it  intimated  that 
3'ou  mean  to  divide  the  Union  whenever  a  Eepublican,  or  anything  like  it, 
is  elected  President  of  the  United  States.  [A  voice  :  That  is  so.]  "  That  is 
so,"  one  of  them  says;  I  wonder  if  he  is  a  Kentuckian?  [A  voice:  He  is  a 
Douglas  man.]  Well,  then,  I  want  to  know  what  you  are  going  to  do  with 
your  half  of  it  ?  Are  you  going  to  split  the  Ohio  down  through,  and  push 
your  half  off  a  piece  ?  Or  are  you  going  to  keep  it  right  alongside  of  us  out- 
rageous fellows  ?  Or  are  you  going  to  build  up  a  wall  some  way  between  your 
country  and  ours,  by  which  that  movable  property  of  yours  can't  come  over 
here  any  more,  to  the  danger  of  your  losing  it  ?  Do  you  think  you  can  better 
yourselves,,  on  that  subject,  by  leaving  us  here  under  no  obligation  whatever  to 


AND  STEPHEN  A  DOUGLAS.  311 

return  those  specimens  of  your  movable  property  that  come  hither  ?  You  have 
divided  the  Union  because  we  woukl  not  do  right  with  you,  as  you  think,  upon 
that  subject ;  when  we  cease  to  be  \inder  obligations  to  do  anything  for  you, 
how  much  better  off  do  you  think  you  will  be  ?  Will  you  make  war  upon  us 
and  kill  us  all?  Why,  gentlemen,  I  think  you  are  as  gallant  and  as  brave  men 
as  live;  that  you  can  fight  as  bravely  in  a  good  cause,  man  for  man,  as  any 
other  people  living;  that  you  have  shown  yourselves  capable  of  this  upon 
various  occasions  :  but,  man  for  man,  you  are  not  better  than  we  are,  and  there 
are  not  so  many  of  you  as  there  are  of  us.  You  will  never  make  much  of  a 
hand  at  whipping  us.  If  we  were  fewer  in  numbers  than  you,  I  think  tliat 
you  could  whip  us ;  if  we  were  equal,  it  would  likely  be  a  drawn  battle ; 
but,  being  inferior  in  numbers,  you  will  make  nothing  by  attempting  to 
master  us. 

But  perhaps  I  have  addressed  myself  as  long,  or  longer,  to  the  Kentuckians 
than  I  ought  to  have  done,  inasmuch  as  I  have  said  that  whatever  course  you 
take  we  intend  in  the  end  to  beat  you.  I  propose  to  address  a  few  remarks  to 
our  friends,  by  way  of  discussing  with  them  the  best  means  of  keeping  that 
promise  that  I  have  in  good  faith  made. 

It  may  appear  a  little  episodical  for  me  to  mention  the  topic  of  which  I 
shall  speak  now.  It  is  a  favorable  proposition  of  Douglas's  that  the  inter- 
ference of  the  General  Government,  through  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  or  through 
any  other  act  of  the  General  Government,  never  has  made  or  ever  can  make  a 
Free  State ;  that  the  Ordinance  of  '87  did  not  make  Free  States  of  Ohio,  Indi- 
ana, or  Illinois.  That  these  States  are  free  upon  his  "  great  principle  "  of 
Popular  Sovereignty,  because  the  people  of  those  several  States  have  chosen 
to  make  them  so.  At  Columbus,  and  probably  here,  he  undertook  to  compli- 
ment the  people  that  they  themselves  have  made  the  State  of  Ohio  free, 
and  that  the  Ordinance  of  '87  was  not  entitled  in  any  degree  to  divide  the 
honor  with  them.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  did 
make  her  free  according  to  their  own  will  audjudgment,  but  let  the  facts  be 
remembered. 

In  1802,  I  believe,  it  was  you  who  made  your  first  constitution,  with  the 
clause  prohibiting  slavery,  and  you  did  it,  I  suppose,  very  nearly  unanimously ; 
but  you  should  bear  in  mind  that  you  —  speaking  of  you  as  one  people  —  that 
you  did  so  unembarrassed  by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  amongst 
you ;  that  you  made  it  a  Free  State,  not  with  the  embarrassment  upon  you  of 
already  having  among  you  many  slaves,  which  if  they  had  been  here,  and  you 
had  sought  to  make  a  Free  State,  you  would  not  know  what  to  do  with.  If 
they  had  been  among  you,  embarrassing  difticulties,  most  probably,  would  have 
induced  you  to  tolerate  a  slave  constitution  instead  of  a  free  one,  as  indeed 
these  very  difficulties  have  constrained  every  people  on  this  continent  who 
have  adopted  slavery. 

Pray  what  was  it  that  made  you  free  ?  What  kept  you  free?  Did  you  not 
find  your  country  free  when  you  came  to  decide  that  Ohio  should  be  a  Free 
State  ?  It  is  important  to  inquire  by  what  reason  you  found  it  so.  Let  us  take 
an  illustration  between  the  States  of  Ohio  and  Kentucky.  Kentucky  is  sepa- 
rated by  this  Eiver  Ohio,  not  a  mile  wide.  A  portion  of  Kentucky,  by  reason 
of  the  course  of  the  Ohio,  is  further  north  than  this  portion  of  Ohio,  in 
which  we  now  stand.  Kentucky  is  entirely  covered  with  slavery ;  Ohio  is 
entirely  free  from  it.  What  made  that  difference  ?  Was  it  climate  ?  No.  A 
portion  of  Kentucky  was  further  north  than  this  portion  of  Ohio.  Was  it 
soil  ?    No.    There  is  nothing  in  the  soil  of  the  one  more  favorable  to  slave 


312  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

labor  than  the  other.  It  was  not  climate  or  soil  that  caused  one  side  of  the 
line  to  be  entirely  covered  with  slavery,  and  the  other  side  free  of  it.  What 
was  it  ?  Study  over  it.  Tell  us,  if  you  can,  in  all  the  range  of  coujecture,  if 
there  be  anything  you  can  conceive  of  that  made  that  difference,  otlier  than 
that  there  was  no  law  of  any  sort  keeping  it  out  of  Kentucky,  while  the 
Ordinance  of  '87  kept  it  out  of  Ohio.  If  there  is  any  other  reason  than  this, 
I  confess  that  it  is  wholly  beyond  my  power  to  conceive  of  it.  This,  then,  I 
offer  to  combat  the  idea  that  that  Ordinance  has  never  made  any  State  free. 

I  don't  stop  at  this  illustration.  I  come  to  the  State  of  Indiana ;  and  what 
I  have  said  as  between  Kentucky  and  Ohio,  I  repeat  as  between  Indiana  and 
Kentucky :  it  is  equally  applicable.  One  additional  argument  is  applicable 
also  to  Indiana.  In  her  Territorial  condition  she  more  than  once  petitioned 
Congress  to  abrogate  the  Ordinance  entirely,  or  at  least  so  far  as  to  suspend  its 
operation  for  a  time,  in  order  that  they  should  exercise  the  "  Popular  Sover- 
eignty "  of  having  slaves  if  they  wanted  them.  The  men  then  controlling  the 
General  Government,  imitating  the  men  of  the  Revolution,  refused  Indiana 
that  privilege.  And  so  we  have  the  evidence  that  Indiana  supposed  she  could 
have  slaves,  if  it  were  not  for  that  Ordinance ;  that  she  besought  Congress  to 
put  that  barrier  out  of  the  way ;  that  Congress  refused  to  do  so ;  and  it  all 
ended  at  last  in  Indiana  being  a  Free  State.  Tell  me  not  then  that  the  Ordin- 
ance of  '87  had  nothing  to  do  with  making  Indiana  a  Free  State,  when  we  find 
some  men  chafing  against,  and  only  restrained  by,  that  barrier. 

Come  down  again  to  our  State  of  Illinois.  The  great  Northwest  Territory, 
including  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  was  acquired  first, 
I  believe,  by  the  British  Government,  in  part,  at  least,  from  the  French. 
Before  the  establishment  of  our  independence  it  becomes  a  part  of  Virginia, 
enabling  Virginia  afterward  to  transfer  it  to  the  General  Government.  There 
were  French  settlements  in  what  is  now  Illinois,  and  at  the  same  time  there 
were  French  settlements  in  what  is  now  Missouri,  —  in  the  tract  of  country 
that  was  not  purchased  till  about  1803.  In  these  French  settlements  negro 
slavery  had  existed  for  many  years,  —  perhaps  more  than  a  hundred,  if  not  as 
much  as  two  hundred  years,  —  at  Kaskaskia,  in  Illinois,  and  at  St.  .Genevieve, 
or  Cape  Girardeau,  perhaps,  in  Missouri.  The  number  of  slaves  was  not  very 
great,  but  there  was  about  the  same  number  in  each  place.  They  were  there 
when  we  acquired  the  Territory.  There  was  no  effort  made  to  break  up  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave,  and  even  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  not  so 
enforced  as  to  destroy  that  slavery  in  Illinois ;  nor  did  the  Ordinance  apply  to 
Missouri  at  all. 

What  I  want  to  ask  your  attention  to,  at  this  point,  is  that  Illinois  and 
Missouri  came  into  the  Union  about  the  same  time,  Illinois  in  the  latter  part 
of  1818,  and  Missouri,  after  a  struggle,  I  believe  sometime  in  1820.  They 
had  been  filling  up  with  American  people  about  the  same  period  of  time ; 
their  progress  enabling  them  to  come  into  the  Union  about  the  same  time.  At 
the  end  of  that  ten  years,  in  which  they  had  been  so  preparing  (for  it  was  about 
that  period  of  time),  the  number  of  slaves  in  Illinois  had  actually  decreased ; 
while  in  Missouri,  beginning  with  very  few,  at  the  end  of  that  ten  years  there 
were  about  ten  thousand.  This  being  so,  and  it  being  remembered  that  Mis- 
souri and  Illinois  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  same  parallel  of  latitude ; 
that  the  northern  half  of  Missouri  and  the  southern  half  of  Illinois  are  in  the 
same  parallel  of  latitude,  so  that  climate  would  have  the  same  effect  upon  one 
as  upon  the  other,  and  that  in  the  soil  there  is  no  material  difference  so  far 
as  bears  upon  the  question  of  slavery  being  settled  upon  one  or  the  other,  — 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  813 

there  being  none  of  tliose  natural  causes  to  produce  a  difference  in  filling  them, 
and  yet  ihere  being  a  broad  difference  in  their  filling  up,  we  are  led  again  to 
inquire  what  was  the  cause  of  that  difference. 

It  is  most  natural  to  say  that  in  Missouri  there  was  no  law  to  keep  that 
country  from  filling  up  with  slaves,  while  in  Illinois  there  was  the  Ordinance 
of  '87.  The  Ordinance  being  there,  slavery  decreased  during  that  ten  years ; 
the  Ordinance  not  being  in  the  other,  it  increased  from  a  few  to  ten  thousand. 
Can  anybody  doubt  the  reason  of  the  difference  ? 

I  think  all  these  facts  most  abundantly  prove  that  my  friend  Judge 
Douglas's  proposition,  that  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  or  the  national  restriction  of 
slavery,  never  had  a  tendency  to  make  a  Free  State,  is  a  fallacy,  —  a  proposi- 
tion without  the  shadow  or  substance  of  truth  about  it. 

Douglas  sometimes  says  that  all  the  States  (and  it  is  part  of  this  same 
proposition  I  have  been  discussing)  that  have  become  free  have  become  so 
upon  his  "great  principle;"  that  the  State  of  Illinois  itself  came  into  the 
Union  as  a  Slave  State,  and  that  the  people,  upon  the  "  great  principle  "  of 
Popular  Sovereignty,  have  since  made  it  a  Free  State.  Allow  me  but  a  little 
while  to  state  to  you  what  facts  there  are  to  justify  him  in  saying  that  Illinois 
came  into  the  Union  as  a  Slave  State. 

I  have  mentioned  to  you  that  there  were  a  few  old  French  slaves  there. 
They  numbered,  I  think,  one  or  two  hundred.  Besides  that,  there  had  been  a 
Territorial  law  for  indenturing  black  persons.  Under  that  law,  in  violation  of 
the  Ordinance  of  '87,  but  without  any  enforcement  of  the  Ordinance  to  over- 
throw the  system,  there  had  been  a  small  number  of  slaves  introduced  as 
indentured  persons.  Owing  to  this,  the  clause  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
was  slightly  modified.  Instead  of  running  like  yours,  that  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude,  except  for  crime,  of  which  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted,  should  exist  in  the  State,  they  said  that  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude  should  thereafter  be  introduced,  and  that  the  children  of 
indentured  servants  should  be  born  free ;  and  nothing  was  said  about  the  few 
old  French  slaves.  Out  of  this  fact,  that  the  clause  for  prohibiting  slavery 
was  modified  because  of  the  actual  presence  of  it,  Douglas  asserts  again  and 
again  that  Illinois  came  into  the  Union  as  a  Slave  State.  How  far  the  facts 
sustain  the  conclusion  that  he  draws,  it  is  for  intelligent  and  impartial  men  to 
decide.  I  leave  it  with  you,  with  these  remarks,  worthy  of  being  remem- 
bered, that  that  little  thing,  those  few  indentured  servants  being  there,  was  of 
itself  sufficient  to  modify  a  constitution  made  by  a  people  ardently  desiring  to 
have  a  free  constitution ;  showing  the  power  of  the  actual  presence  of  the 
institution  of  slavery  to  prevent  any  people,  however  anxious  to  make  a  Free 
State,  from  making  it  perfectly  so. 

I  have  been  detaining  you  longer,  perhaps,  than  I  ought  to  do. 

I  am  in  some  doubt  whether  to  introduce  another  topic  upon  which  I  could 
talk  awhile.  [Cries  of  "  Go  on,"  and  "  Give  us  it."]  It  is  this,  then  :  Douglas's 
Popular  Sovereignty,  as  a  principle,  is  simply  this :  If  one  man  chooses  to 
make  a  slave  of  another  man,  neither  that  man  nor  anybody  else  has  a  right 
to  object.  Apply  it  to  government,  as  he  seeks  to  apply  it,  and  it  is  this :  If, 
in  a  new  Territory  into  which  a  few  people  are  beginning  to  enter  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  their  homes,  they  choose  to  either  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits,  or  to  establish  it  there,  however  one  or  the  other  may  affect  the  persons 
to  be  enslaved,  or  the  infinitely  greater  number  of  persons  who  are  afterward 
to  inhabit  that  Territory,  or  the  other  members  of  the  family  of  communities 
of  which  they  are  but  an  incipient  member,  or  the  general  head  of  the  family 

40 


314  DEBATES   BETWEEN  ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 

of  States  as  parent  of  all,  —  liowever  their  action  may  affect  one  or  the  other 
of  these,  there  is  no  power  or  right  to  interfere.  That  is  Douglas's*.  Popular 
Sovereignty  applied.  Now,  I  think  that  there  is  a  real  Popular  Sovereignty  in 
the  world.  I  think  a  definition  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  in  the  abstract,  would 
be  about  this :  that  each  man  shall  do  precisely  as  he  pleases  with  himself,  and 
with  all  those  things  wliich  exclusively  concern  him.  Applied  in  government, 
this  principle  would  be :  that  a  general  government  shall  do  all  those  things 
which  pertain  to  it,  and  all  the  local  governments  shall  do  precisely  as  they 
please  in  respect  to  those  matters  wliich  exclusively  concern  them. 

Douglas  looks  upon  slavery  as  so  insignificant  that  the  people  must  decide 
that  question  for  tliemselves ;  and  yet  they  are  not  fit  to  decide  who  shall  be 
their  governor,  judge  or  secretary,  or  who  shall  be  any  of  their  officers.  These 
are  vast  national  matters,  in  his  estimation  ;  but  the  little  matter  in  his  estima- 
tion is  that  of  planting  slavery  there.  That  is  purely  of  local  interest,  which 
nobody  should  be  allowed  to  say  a  word  about. 

Labor  is  the  great  source  from  which  nearly  all,  if  not  all,  human  comforts 
and  necessities  are  drawn.  There  is  a  difference  in  opinion  about  the  elements 
of  labor  in  society.  Some  men  assume  that  there  is  a  necessary  connection 
between  capital  and  labor,  and  that  connection  draws  within  it  the  whole  of 
the  labor  of  the  community.  They  assume  that  nobody  works  unless  capital 
excites  them  to  work.  They  begin  next  to  consider  what  is  the  best  way. 
The}^  say  there  are  but  two  ways :  one  is  to  hire  men,  and  to  allure  them  to 
labor  by  their  consent ;  the  other  is  to  buy  the  men,  and  drive  them  to  it ; 
and  that  is  slavery.  Having  assumed  that,  they  proceed  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  the  laborers  themselves  are  better  off  in  the  condition  of  slaves 
or  of  hired  laborers,  and  they  usually  decide  that  they  are  better  off  in  the 
condition  of  slaves. 

In  the  first  place,  I  say  that  the  whole  thing  is  a  mistake.  That  there  is 
a  certain  relation  between  capital  and  labor,  I  admit.  That  it  does  exist,  and 
rightfully  exists,  I  think  is  true.  That  men  who  are  industrious,  and  sober, 
and  honest  in  the  pursuit  of  their  own  interests  should  after  a  while  accumu- 
late capital,  and  after  that  should  be  allowed  to  enjoy  it  in  peace,  and  also,  if 
they  should  choose,  when  they  have  accumulated  it,  to  use  it  to  save  them- 
selves from  actual  labor,  and  hire  other  people  to  labor  for  them,  is  right.  In 
doing  so  they  do  not  wrong  the  man  they  employ,  for  they  find  men  who  have 
not  of  their  own  land  to  work  upon,  or  shops  to  work  in,  and  who  are  bene- 
fited by  working  for  others,  hired  laborers,  receiving  their  capital  for  it.  Thus 
a  few  men,  that  own  capital,  hire  a  few  others,  and  these  establish  the  relation 
of  capital  and  labor  rightfully.  A  relation  of  which  I  make  no  complaint. 
But  I  insist  that  that  relation,  after  all,  does  not  embrace  more  than  one-eighth 
of  the  labor  of  the  country. 

[The  speaker  proceeded  to  argue  that  the  hired  laborer,  with  his  ability  to  become 
an  employer,  must  have  every  precedence  over  him  who  labors  under  the  inducement 
of  force.     He  continued  :] 

I  have  taken  upon  myself,  in  the  name  of  some  of  you,  to  say  that  we 
expect  upon  these  principles  to  ultimately  beat  them.  In  order  to  do  so,  I 
think  we  want  and  must  have  a  national  policy  in  regard  to  the  institution  of 
slavery,  that  acknowledges  and  deals  with  that  institution  as  being  wrong. 
Whoever  desires  the  prevention  of  the  spread  of  slavery  and  the  nationaliza- 
tion of  that  institution,  yields  all,  when  he  yields  to  any  policy  that  either 


AND  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  "     315 

recognizes  slavery  as  being  right,  or  as  being  an  indifferent  thing.  Nothing 
will  make  you  successful  but  setting  up  a  policy  which  shall  treat  the  thing 
as  being  wrong.  When  I  say  this,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  this  General 
Government  is  cliarged  with  the  duty  of  redressing  or  preventing  all  the 
wrongs  in  the  world,  but  I  do  think  that  it  is  charged  with  preventing  and 
redressing  all  wrongs  which  are  wrongs  to  itself.  This  government  is 
expressly  charged  with  the  duty  of  providing  for  the  general  welfare.  We 
believe  that  the  spreading  out  and  perpetuity  of  the  institution  of  slavery 
impairs  the  general  welfare.  We  believe  —  nay,  we  know  —  that  that  is  the 
only  thing  that  has  ever  threatened  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  itself.  The 
only  thing  which  has  ever  menaced  the  destruction  of  the  government  under 
which  we  live,  is  this  very  thing.  To  repress  this  thing,  we  think,  is  pro- 
viding for  the  general  welfare.     Our  friends  in  Kentucky  differ  from  us.     We 

DO  " 

need  not  make  our  argument  for  them,  but  we  who  tliink  it  is  wrong  in  all  its 
relations,  or  in  some  of  them  at  least,  must  decide  as  to  our  own  actions  and 
our  own  course,  upon  our  own  judgment. 

I  say  that  we  must  not  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the 
States  where  it  exists,  because  the  Constitution  forbids  it,  and  the  general 
welfare  does  not  require  us  to  do  so.  We  must  not  withhold  an  efficient  Fugi- 
tive Slave  law,  because  the  Constitution  requires  us,  as  I  understand  it,  not  to 
withhold  such  a  law.  But  we  must  prevent  the  outspreading  of  the  institution, 
because  neither  the  Constitution  nor  general  welfare  requires  us  to  extend  it. 
We  must  prevent  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  and  the  enacting  by 
Congress  of  a  Territorial  slave-code.  We  must  prevent  each  of  these  things 
being  done  by  either  congresses  or  courts.  The  people  of  these  United  States 
are  the  rightful  masters  of  both  congresses  and  courts,  not  to  overthrow  the 
Constitution,  but  to  overthrow  the  men  who  pervert  the  Constitution. 

To  do  these  things  we  must  employ  instrumentalities.  We  must  hold  con- 
ventions ;  we  must  adopt  platforms,  if  we  conform  to  ordinary  custom ;  we 
must  nominate  candidates  ;  and  we  must  carry  elections.  In  all  these  things, 
I  think  that  we  ought  to  keep  in  view  our  real  purpose,  and  in  none  do  any- 
thing that  stands  adverse  to  our  purpose.  If  we  shall  adopt  a  platform  that 
fails  to  recognize  or  express  our  purpose,  or  elect  a  man  that  declares  himself 
inimical  to  our  purpose,  we  not  only  take  nothing  by  our  success,  but  we 
tacitly  admit  that  we  act  upon  no  other  principle  than  a  desire  to  have  "the 
loaves  and  fishes,"  by  which,  in  the  end,  our  apparent  success  is  really  an 
injury  to  us. 

I  know  that  this  is  very  desirable  with  me,  as  with  everybody  else,  that  all 
the  elements  of  the  opposition  shall  unite  in  the  next  Presidential  election 
and  in  all  future  time.  I  am  anxious  that  that  should  be ;  but  there  are 
things  seriously  to  be  considered  in  relation  to  that  matter.  If  the  terms  can 
be  arranged,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  Union.  But  suppose  we  shall  take  up  some 
man,  and  put  him  upon  one  end  or  the  other  of  the  ticket,  who  declares  him- 
self against  us  in  regard  to  the  prevention  of  the  spread  of  slavery,  who  turns 
up  his  nose  and  says  he  is  tired  of  hearing  anything  more  about  it,  who  is 
more  against  us  than  against  the  enemy,  what  will  be  the  issue  ?  Why,  he 
will  get  no  Slave  States,  after  all,  —  he  has  tried  that  already  until  being  beat 
is  the  rule  for  him.  If  we  nominate  him  upon  that  ground,  he  will  not  carry 
a  Slave  State ;  and  not  only  so,  but  that  portion  of  our  men  who  are  high- 
strung  upon  the  principle  we  really  fight  for  will  not  go  for  him,  and  he  won't 
get  a  single  electoral  vote  anywhere,  except,  perhaps,  in  the  State  of  Maryland. 
There  is  no  use  in  saying  to  us  that  we  are  stubborn  and  obstinate  because  we 


316  DEBATES   BETWEEN  LINCOLN  AND   DOUGLAS. 

won't  do  some  such  thing  as  this.  We  cannot  do  it.  We  cannot  get  our  men 
to  vote  it.  I  speak  by  the  card,  that  we  cannot  give  the  State  of  Illinois  in 
such  case  by  fifty  thousand.  We  would  be  flatter  down  than  the  "Negro 
Democracy"  themselves  have  the  heart  to  wish  to  see  us. 

After  saying  this  much,  let  me  say  a  little  on  the  other  side.  There  are 
plenty  of  men  in  the  Slave  States  that  are  altogether  good  enough  for  me  to 
be  either  President  or  Vice-President,  provided  they  will  profess  their  sym- 
pathy with  our  purpose,  and  will  place  themselves  on  the  ground  that  our 
men,  upon  principle,  can  vote  for  them.  There  are  scores  of  them,  good  men 
in  their  character  for  intelligence  and  talent  and  integrity.  If  such  a  one  will 
place  himseK  upon  the  right  ground,  I  am  for  his  occupying  one  place  upon 
the  next  Eepublican  or  opposition  ticket.  I  will  heartily  go  for  him.  But 
unless  he  does  so  place  himself,  I  think  it  a  matter  of  perfect  nonsense  to 
attempt  to  bring  about  a  union  upon  any  other  basis  ;  that  if  a  union  be  made, 
the  elements  will  scatter  so  that  there  can  be  no  success  for  such  a  ticket,  nor 
anything  like  success.  The  good  old  maxims  of  the  Bible  are  applicable,  and 
truly  applicable,  to  human  affairs,  and  in  this,  as  in  other  things,  we  may  say 
here  that  he  who  is  not  for  us  is  against  us ;  he  who  gathereth  not  with  us, 
scattereth.  I  should  be  glad  to  have  some  of  the  many  good,  and  able,  and 
noble  men  of  the  South  to  place  themselves  where  we  can  confer  upon  them 
the  high  honor  of  an  election  upon  one  or  the  other  end  of  our  ticket.  It 
would  do  my  soul  good  to  do  that  thing.  It  would  enable  us  to  teach  them 
that,  inasmuch  as  we  select  one  of  their  own  number  to  carry  out  our  prin- 
ciples, we  are  free  from  the  charge  that  we  mean  more  than  we  say. 

But,  my  friends,  I  have  detained  you  much  longer  than  I  expected  to  do. 
I  believe  I  may  do  myself  the  compliment  to  say  that  you  have  stayed  and 
heard  me  with  great  patience,  for  which  I  return  you  my  most  sincere 
thanks. 


THE   END. 


I 

! 


wMM 

t!-{:;-^;^;-i  f^ni 

'i 

rrutr::.";;:;:;: 

i::;:i;;t: :;:; 


::::;nt:: 


